ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Council Tax Benefit

Dave Watts: What plans he has for reform of council tax benefit; and if he will make a statement.

Andy Sawford: What plans he has for reform of council tax benefit; and if he will make a statement.

Brandon Lewis: Spending on council tax benefit doubled under the last Administration, and welfare reform is vital to tackle the budget deficit we inherited from the last Labour Government. Replacing council tax benefit with local support schemes gives councils control over how to achieve a 10% saving, and a direct incentive to help local people into work.

Dave Watts: At a time when the Government are giving massive tax cuts to the rich, will the Minister explain why council tax will increase for low-paid families, disabled people and single mums in St Helens?

Brandon Lewis: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make the case clearly to his own local authority, which is looking at a scheme at the moment that would not necessarily do the most to help local people into work. The whole point of what we are doing is that it will give local councils the power to be part of their local economy, to drive economic growth and to get people back into work.

Andy Sawford: One council told the Communities and Local Government Select Committee that the reduction would create additional financial pressures through administration and debt collection, as well as having an effect on services such as debt advice, welfare support and housing advice, and a huge effect on homelessness. Given that that was Tory-controlled Croydon council, does the Minister accept that even his own friends recognise that this is an ill thought out cut that will hurt the poorest?

Brandon Lewis: Similarly, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will talk to Corby council about coming up with a scheme that will help people back into work. Our scheme will give local authorities the power to look at what their communities need and to deliver for their communities. It will then be up to the communities to hold their councils to account, as I hope they will in Corby.

John Leech: Manchester city council could more than make up the loss of council tax benefits from empty and second homes, but is instead planning to force thousands of people to pay extra council tax. Does the Minister agree that this is yet another example of Labour-run councils making the wrong choices and attacking the vulnerable?

Brandon Lewis: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Like the two Labour authorities that I have just mentioned, that is another that is not putting its local
	people first. It really needs to look at its schemes again and put local people first.

Hilary Benn: In December, the Secretary of State tried to justify his plan to increase council tax bills for people on low incomes, including his own constituents. He assured the House that he had intervened to
	“protect people and ensure that nobody has to pay more than 8.5%.”—[Official Report, 17 December 2012; Vol. 555, c. 559.]
	Is it still the case that no one in Brentwood will have to pay more than 8.5%?

Brandon Lewis: The right hon. Gentleman gives me another chance to highlight that what we are doing is taking control of a situation in which council tax doubled under the last Government and council tax benefits rose from around £2 billion to £4.5 billion. That benefit has to be got under control as part of deficit reduction, and I wonder whether it would be part of the £52 billion of cuts from his own Government’s proposals that he has not yet even outlined.

Hilary Benn: Once again, we have no answer to a straight, factual question. The Minister is in denial. The answer is 20% in Brentwood. Why is that? It is because councils up and down the country, Tory and Labour, have been put in an impossible position by Ministers. Is it not the truth that
	“the very lowest paid are going to be in a very difficult place”?
	Those are not my words but those of the Conservative leader of the Local Government Association. While the Secretary of State has been travelling up and down the country lecturing councils about not increasing their council tax, he has all along been masterminding a council tax increase for those who can least afford it. Does he not understand that the public will see that happening in the very same month that the top rate of tax is cut, and that they will say, “This is unfair”?

Brandon Lewis: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman oversimplifies things. Local authorities have, as we have said, the right to look at their local communities and design schemes that they think are right for them, in contrast to the central diktat that the last Government used to impose. The authority that he has mentioned in Brentwood is a good example, because what he did not mention was the way it had changed the taper to ensure that it will pay to work.

Small Shops (Rates)

Peter Aldous: What steps he is taking to help small shops with business rates.

Mel Stride: What steps he is taking to help small shops with business rates.

Mark Prisk: The Government have taken significant steps to help small retailers, including doubling the level of small business rates relief for a further year until March 2014. This will benefit 500,000 small and medium-sized businesses.

Peter Aldous: I am grateful for that answer. Business rates for shops are a particular concern for small shops in my constituency. Has my hon. Friend’s Department carried out any analysis to ascertain how many local authorities are using the powers provided in the Localism Act 2011 to give discretionary rate relief to small businesses? If not, what can be done to encourage them to use them more extensively?

Mark Prisk: We are collecting that information right now, and we will present it to the House shortly. What I can say is that we have given new powers to councils to be able to provide further business rate discounts, and also the flexibility to be able to use them when and where they think is best. I would strongly encourage councils, whether they be in my hon. Friend’s constituency or elsewhere, to use those powers so they can better help their high streets.

Mel Stride: Small shops in Crediton, an important market town in my constituency, suffered greatly under the last Government’s planning guidelines, which pushed up car parking charges in the centre of town and pushed away trade. Will my hon. Friend outline the steps that the Government are taking to ensure that, under our planning guidelines, car parking charges will be pushed downwards, not up?

Mark Prisk: We have scrapped Labour’s red tape so that councils can be far more flexible about the way in which car parking charges and associated rules work. That will enable more people to be attracted into excellent towns such as Crediton in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Again, I urge councils to be more innovative in how they manage to make their charges for parking. I have seen a number of instances where simple changes can make a real difference to our local high streets.

Seema Malhotra: Liz Peace, chief executive of the British Property Federation, said:
	“The decision by Government to delay revaluation until 2017 is a real shot in the foot for the retail industry”.
	Does the Minister agree?

Mark Prisk: No, I do not agree. As I have said to the British Property Federation on several occasions, we looked very carefully at the valuation office evidence that was presented to us. What it showed was that for every three businesses that might gain, eight could lose—including, potentially, a loss of £100 million to retailing in London. That is why we have taken what I think is the correct decision to defer that revaluation until 2017.

Russell Brown: Undoubtedly, business rates can be a burden on many small shops, but has the Minister had any discussion with his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions because, as a result of the freezing of the benefits uprating at 1%, £6 billion will be taken out of local economies the length and breadth of this country? That will hit small shops hardest, will it not?

Mark Prisk: Disposable income is very important—the hon. Gentleman is right—which is why I am proud that our Government are unlike the Labour party, which
	doubled council tax bills during its term in office. That hits the disposable pound, and it is a shame that the Labour party did not understand that while in government.

Fire and Rescue Service

Sarah Champion: What assessment he has made of the effect of spending reductions in each fire and rescue service area.

Jim Cunningham: What assessment he has made of the effect of spending reductions in each fire and rescue service area.

Mary Glindon: What assessment he has made of the effect of spending reductions in each fire and rescue service area.

Brandon Lewis: Fire and rescue authorities have been protected by back-loading grant reductions into years 3 and 4 of the spending review period. That has provided time to meet the reductions without impacting on the quality of local services. There is scope for fire and rescue authorities to make sensible savings.

Sarah Champion: In South Yorkshire, we are losing 140 firefighters, and we are currently advertising for contract part-time reservists, not full-timers. Will the Minister assure us that these actions and the restrictions on growth will not affect response times, which could put lives at risk?

Brandon Lewis: As I am sure the hon. Lady will appreciate, local response times and decision making over local things like that are a matter for the local fire service. I am pleased to say, however, that the fire service has been protected; indeed, South Yorkshire will receive an extra £2.4 million in capital funding.

Jim Cunningham: Why are fire authority areas with higher incident rates suffering the largest cuts? The West Midlands fire service has been the hardest hit, with cuts of nearly 19%. Will the Government not have another look at that?

Brandon Lewis: The West Midlands fire service also benefits from the de minimis changes in this year’s settlement. It is also one of the authorities that has gained most from the capital grant funding of £11.5 million.

Mary Glindon: Tyne and Wear fire and rescue service would have suffered a 16% reduction in grant funding over this coming year had it not been for the floor mechanism. Given the reliance on the floor, does the Minister believe that the formula accurately reflects the relevant needs and local risks? Will he review the formula now before it is locked in?

Brandon Lewis: I believe that a report from the House of Commons Library stated that this year’s formula and settlement were fair to north, south, east and west. However, to offer some extra support to fire and rescue authorities, I have asked the outgoing chief fire and
	rescue adviser, Sir Ken Knight, to look at ways in which they can deliver savings and improvements without reducing the quality of their lifesaving work.

Rehman Chishti: Will the Minister join me in welcoming the introduction by Kent fire and rescue service of a new system in Medway that helps to reduce damage caused by fire?

Brandon Lewis: I am happy to congratulate Kent fire and rescue service on its work. When I visited its headquarters recently, I observed some of the innovative work that it is doing in both protecting the front line and making savings by, for instance, sharing its call centre with the police. I hope that fire services across the country will learn from that innovative way of working.

Chris Williamson: The average spending power reductions are 14.5% for metropolitan fire authorities and 7.5% for combined fire authorities. That has resulted in fewer appliances, fire station closures, reductions in fire-prevention work, and an increased response time in certain areas. However, the fire Minister wrote to me last month that
	“savings should be made without… affecting…frontline services.”
	As Winston Churchill once said, “The truth is incontrovertible.” Will the Minister now accept the incontrovertible truth that his cuts are adversely affecting front-line fire and rescue services?

Brandon Lewis: In the interests of absolute truth, let me reconfirm that the reduction in spending power for fire and rescue authorities was 2.2% for 2011-12 and 0.5% for 2012-13. As was said earlier, that moves to 4.7% 2013-14, with the back-loading, and to just 3.3% in 2014-15. Those figures are slightly different from the ones given by the hon. Gentleman.

Social Housing (Under-occupancy)

Kerry McCarthy: What assessment he has made of the availability of accommodation for those who downsize as a result of the new under-occupancy rules for social housing.

Don Foster: I am sure that the 278,000 families in overcrowded social housing will welcome the increased availability of larger homes, given that some 390,000 families under-occupy their properties by two bedrooms or more.

Kerry McCarthy: According to the Department’s own impact assessment, more than 660,000 housing benefit claimants will be affected by these changes. It is ridiculous to assume that they will be able to find the money out of their own pockets, given all the other cuts that are being introduced. They will be forced to lose their homes. What assessment has the Minister made of the availability of smaller accommodation? Will those people not just be pushed into expensive private sector accommodation, meaning that the housing benefit bill will go up?

Don Foster: I have already pointed out that a large number of properties are currently under-occupied. The position will be helped enormously by a policy that is identical to the one adopted by the Labour Government
	in respect of the payment of housing benefit in the private rented sector. We are taking the advice of the Labour party, which said a year ago that housing benefit was “simply too high” and that we needed “tough-minded” reform.

Annette Brooke: In the light of the expected mid-term review statement on housing, will my right hon. Friend consider the capacity of councils to borrow—for example, to facilitate the building of one and two-bedroom properties where they are so much needed by councils and arm’s length management organisations?

Don Foster: As my hon. Friend will know, as a result of changes made by this Government to deal with the borrowing pressures placed on local authorities, they have been more able to borrow. The review that we are currently undertaking will include the issues that she has raised.

Karen Buck: According to the Government’s impact assessment, most of the under-occupied properties are in the north of England and most of the overcrowded properties are in the south. Can the Minister confirm that part of his strategy is to move Londoners in overcrowded housing to the north?

Don Foster: No, it certainly is not. Having recognised that in some parts of the country there will be problems with the introduction of this policy, the Government have provided councils with large sums of money to help them with their transitional arrangements and ensure that everyone can have a decent home over their heads—unlike the last Government, who reduced the amount of social housing by a staggering 421,000 properties.

Helen Jones: Last week, the Tory deputy leader of Cheshire West and Chester council wrote to Ministers outlining the consequences of this policy. Can the Minister now tell him and us: where are the homes for families deemed to be over-occupying because they have a special room for a disabled child? Where are the homes for foster carers who are deemed to be over-occupying because they keep a spare room for emergency placements? Where are the homes for families who have a son or daughter in the armed forces who are deemed to be over-occupying because they keep a spare room for when those people are on leave? The Minister knows that the homes are not there, so why does he not abandon this vindictive policy?

Don Foster: The Government are well aware of these issues, which is why we made an additional £25 million available to help in relation to the disabled people the hon. Lady talks about, and it is why we have made an additional £5 million available in relation to carers. While armed forces personnel are living at home, the home would have a £70 per week discount, whereas while the person is serving, the discount would be only 14%—a very much lower sum.

Refuse Collection (Derby)

Pauline Latham: What recent discussions he has had with Derby city council on its refuse collection policies.

Eric Pickles: I have had no discussions with Derby city council, but I am disappointed to hear of plans by the Labour council to charge residents for collecting their garden waste.

Pauline Latham: What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of Labour-run Derby city council’s proposed £40 brown bin tax?

Eric Pickles: There is a very good case for comparing that bin tax with what the neighbouring Amber Valley borough council is doing. That Conservative authority is about to introduce a new recycling service, which will be more convenient for households and will reduce the amount of waste that goes into landfill, and includes a free garden waste collection service. That is good practice and I encourage other councils to follow suit.

Planning

Natascha Engel: Whether his Department plans to review change-of-use planning regulations.

Nicholas Boles: We have recently announced a significant package of improvements to support economic growth and the free school movement. We will continue to keep the use classes system under review.

Natascha Engel: I thank the Minister for that answer, although I was more after details on the regulations for changing a pub into a supermarket, a process for which there is absolutely no need for change-of-use planning permission. Does he have any plans to introduce planning permission for that, so that local people have a say in a change of use that significantly alters the communities in which they live?

Nicholas Boles: All local authorities have the possibility of resorting to an article 4 direction to restrict the application of a change-of-use permitted development right in their area, and they can do so if they are concerned about the loss of pubs in the way that the hon. Lady describes.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will my hon. Friend ensure that very clear planning guidelines are introduced for five-year housing supply, housing numbers and, above all, deliverability, because on the ground at the moment the methodology is arbitrarily decided on appeal? It is very unsatisfactory when local people and local authorities cannot make decisions that benefit their areas.

Nicholas Boles: My hon. Friend rightly says that it is important that local authorities take an objective approach to the assessment of their housing needs and of the five-year supply. Lord Taylor of Goss Moor is conducting a review of the complete set of planning guidance, and high on his list of priorities is producing new guidance on exactly that question, certainly before the end of July.

Stephen Timms: Local authorities that refuse permission for yet another betting shop in their high street find that at the moment the refusal is often overturned by the Planning Inspectorate. Is the Minister examining the possibility of a separate use class for betting shops?

Nicholas Boles: The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is reviewing the whole situation for betting shops, but we have no specific plans to do as the right hon. Gentleman suggests at this time.

Greg Mulholland: The Minister is right to say that local authorities can, and indeed should, introduce local planning policies to deal with the kind of problems that we have heard about. Will he therefore join my condemnation and that of the all-party save the pub group of the extraordinary decision taken by the British Beer and Pub Association to seek to overturn Cambridge city council’s elected policy for pubs, given that that is what the council wants to do and the people want it as well?

Nicholas Boles: If the policy of the city of Cambridge is properly arrived at as an expression of local feeling, I am sure that it will be able to defend it from any challenge from whatever quarter.

Local Government Finance

Paul Maynard: What recent assessment he has made of the local government finance settlement; and if he will make a statement.

Eric Pickles: The local government settlement that we have confirmed today provides councils with an average of £2,216 per household, which will enable them to freeze council tax and deliver essential front-line services to their residents. The figure for Blackpool is £2,458, well above the national average.

Paul Maynard: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. What role does deprivation play in reaching a local government finance settlement with individual councils, such as Blackpool, where deprivation is very high? Will the Secretary of State reassure me that those councils are not disproportionately penalised in reaching that settlement?

Eric Pickles: I can give my hon. Friend that reassurance. The figures show that the scheme that gives the weighting for deprivation is essentially unchanged from Labour’s scheme, apart from one significant change. We have introduced banded floors—damping floors—that mean that those who are more dependent on grant receive more protection than those that are more prosperous. It is fair to say that the settlement is more progressive and gives greater weight to deprivation than Labour’s scheme.

Clive Betts: When the Secretary of State first announced the settlement for next year he referred to a cut in spending power of 1.7%. Will he confirm that that should have been 2.6%, as he double-counted the council tax support money? Will he also confirm that the cash handed over to local
	authorities in the start-up funding assessment next year will be 8.4% less than this year’s formula grant, which it replaces? Will the Secretary of State stop pretending that cuts of that magnitude can be managed without hitting front-line services?

Eric Pickles: I am delighted to confirm to the hon. Gentleman that the reduction in spending power is not 1.7% but 1.3%. That represents good news. Figures tend to move about—[Laughter.] That is why we have a provisional settlement. I do not know why Opposition Members are laughing; I respectfully remind them that in several settlements things changed dramatically and that one year Labour was forced to go out to consultation again.

Peter Luff: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the £1.3 million new homes bonus paid to Worcestershire is being funded by a £3.5 million reduction in its baseline funding and that Wychavon district council’s new homes bonus of £1.2 million over the past three years has been matched by a £2.2 million reduction in its baseline funding? Does he understand the inexorable logic of the position that including the new homes bonus in spending power perverts the purpose of the new homes bonus, which is to incentivise communities to accept new development?

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend must accept that we took more into consideration than the grant going in and that we have moved on to spending power, which is what the Local Government Association and the Labour Opposition wanted to see. The local government spend is £114 billion. That is twice the size of the defence budget and more than we spend on the national health service. Even his own authority must play a part in reducing public spending to deal with the deficit we were left by the Opposition. The new homes bonus gives the authority an opportunity to make money.

Nick Brown: I understand what the Secretary of State just said, but the obligation is not fairly spread across all local authorities in England. Will he reconsider central Government grant aid to local authorities and the relationship between that and the obligation to provide statutory social services, as the demand for such provision is steadily rising in inner-city areas while the grant is steadily being reduced?

Eric Pickles: That is of course why we have given additional sums to help those areas that are more reliant. That is why a place such as Newcastle will receive something like £600 per household more than somewhere like Wokingham. That is a sensible thing to do, and the right hon. Gentleman should support that, rather than decry it.

Local Government Finance

John Whittingdale: What assessment he has made of the effect of the local government finance settlement on local authorities in rural areas.

Brandon Lewis: We have confirmed the increase in the sparsity weighting and top-ups that
	we proposed at consultation. Further, we are providing an £8.5 million grant to support the delivery to sparsely populated areas of efficiencies in services.

John Whittingdale: May I welcome my hon. Friend’s recognition of the fact that the provision of services in rural communities such as Maldon district where populations are sparsely distributed often costs more, but does he accept the disappointment that the local government finance settlement appears to do little to reduce the rural penalty? In fact, it entrenches it for forthcoming years.

Brandon Lewis: We recognise the concerns of rural areas such as Maldon and similar areas where the costs that sparsity can bring are clear. The £8.5 million that we have announced in the statement today will go to 95 local authorities, all of which are rural. However, I would point out that in meetings that my officials and I have had with people from rural networks we have confirmed that the gap is narrowing thanks to changes that we made in the settlement. It is becoming smaller than it ever was under the previous Government, who put the finances in a situation that was detrimental to rural areas across the country.

Duncan Hames: Those newly announced funds are certainly welcome. Is the Minister aware that in his Department’s own analysis shire districts such as Watford borough council count as rural while unitaries, including Wiltshire council, are lumped in the urban category? Given that, how can he be sure of the boast that the proposed settlement is fair to urban and rural alike?

Brandon Lewis: I am quite happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to go through the situation. We have confirmed with rural networks that across all types of authorities the gap between rural and urban has narrowed as a result of the statement.

Illegal Encampment

Gavin Barwell: What steps he is taking to help local authorities tackle illegal encampments.

Eric Pickles: Councils and the police have a range of strong powers to take action against illegal encampments and unauthorised development. We recently reminded councils of the extensive powers at their disposal to deal with the problems swiftly.

Gavin Barwell: Over the summer, a group of Travellers moved back and forth between several sites in Croydon, costing council tax payers and private landowners thousands of pounds. What else can the Government do to help councils tackle that antisocial behaviour, and in particular, will the Minister look at allowing councils to use their byelaws against encampments on private as well as public land?

Eric Pickles: Significant powers already exist, and the police have powers to deal with people who are causing a public nuisance by consistently making illegal encampments. I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the
	Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which gives the police considerable powers to deal with that. In addition, we are consulting on the introduction of a temporary stop notice with immediate effect, which will put considerable powers in the hands of the local council.

House Building

Simon Danczuk: What steps he is taking to increase the number of housing starts; and if he will make a statement.

Nick Raynsford: What steps he is taking to increase the number of housing starts; and if he will make a statement.

Mark Prisk: Over the past 15 years or more, this country has been building half the number of homes that we need. This Government are determined to reverse that trend, by reforming the planning system, expanding the private rented sector and by building 170,000 more affordable homes.

Simon Danczuk: There are thousands on the housing waiting list in Rochdale, and homelessness is rising. Like Rochdale residents, does the Minister not regret his Government’s decision to cut the affordable housing budget by 60%?

Mark Prisk: In fact, the £19.5 million is an important investment, not least to try to reverse the fall in social housing under the previous Government of some 421,000 homes. We want to build those 170,000 homes, but there is a long way to go before we can clear up the mess that we have inherited.

Nick Raynsford: May I draw attention to my interests as declared in the register?
	Over the past few weeks, the Minister has answered some very interesting questions, and has provided data about the new homes bonus. He will have looked at the figures as closely as I have, and will therefore know that it is not only very expensive but a complete failure. Does he accept that the 17 local authorities that are receiving the largest amount of new homes bonus are granting substantially fewer planning permissions than they were—37% below the levels of 2005-06, and 6% below the abysmal levels of last year?

Mark Prisk: Some of the questions were from the right hon. Gentleman, though whether they were interesting or not is another matter. I would say to him, if I may, that he needs to understand that the principle of the new homes bonus is very simple: “The more you build, the more you get.” That is why we see that Manchester, Sheffield and Bradford have shown the way. They are willing to do that, which is why we recognise that there will be at least 400,000 additional homes as a direct result of the bonus.

Mark Pawsey: Does the Minister agree that more authorities should take the approach of authorities such as Rugby borough council, which has allocated land in its local plan, with two sites coming forward, to enable the development of 7,500 new homes?

Mark Prisk: I very much welcome that. It is important that some authorities are being proactive in the way in which they handle their planning system and engage with the new homes bonus. We have a shared ambition to overturn something that has happened for the past 15 or 20 years. I wish sometimes that Labour would be a little more positive about it.

Bob Russell: In the context of housing starts, does the Minister agree that planners and developers of grotesque schemes such as the proposed 1,600-homes estate in my constituency to be accessed by a one-mile cul de sac should be forced to live there for a minimum of five years as a condition of any planning consent?

Mark Prisk: The safest answer for me to give is that that is a novel idea. I will reflect on it in due course.

Jack Dromey: The Secretary of State told the BBC that on house building “signs are encouraging,” boasting of building 132,000 homes. “Encouraging”? Far from encouraging, housing completions have fallen in both financial years since Labour left office, and housing starts have fallen to 98,000. Does the Housing Minister recognise those figures? He should, because they come from his own Department. Will he take this opportunity of correcting the misleading impression given by the Secretary of State? Does he accept that no amount of massaging statistics can conceal the fact that this is a Government who are presiding over the biggest housing crisis in a generation?

Mark Prisk: Gosh! What a lot of rhetoric, but not a lot of facts. The reality is that the net addition to the housing stock is up 11% on the last four figures that we have, at 135,000. That is the highest level in four years. Is there more to do? Absolutely. Do we want to make sure that we reverse the trend on affordable homes? Yes, but carping from the Opposition Benches will not help that process or the people whom the Opposition claim to represent.

Right to Buy

David Davies: What steps he is taking to promote the right to buy.

Mark Prisk: Last year we reformed the right to buy both to increase the discounts for tenants and to ensure that the receipts from sales are recycled into building more affordable homes. We are now actively informing and helping thousands of tenants to turn their ambition into reality.

David Davies: I commend the Minister on the work that he is doing. Will he explain these benefits to his colleagues in the Welsh Assembly, who seem wedded to some sort of out-dated socialist-collectivist dogma which is denying the people of Wales the right to buy homes, which they could enjoy in England?

Mark Prisk: Unlike the Opposition, we believe that credit-worthy council tenants should be able to buy their home. That is why this spring in England we will
	have directly contacted 95% of the eligible families. These people have rights. We will make sure that they can put them into practice.

Graham Jones: I notice in the Minister’s answer the absence of like-for-like, one-for-one replacements. Can he clarify that and give the House information—or put it in the Library—about the number of right-to-buy properties that have been sold and the number that have been built as replacement units?

Mark Prisk: I am happy to clarify the situation. In the last six months for which we have records, £86 million has been recycled from those sales back into affordable homes. I should have thought the hon. Gentleman would welcome that fact.

Troubled Families

Mike Freer: What steps he is taking to support local authorities in helping troubled families.

Eric Pickles: We are providing local authorities with £448 million over three years, including funding for troubled families co-ordinators in all 152 upper- tier councils. My troubled families team works closely to support councils and has recently published reports on effective family intervention and the significant cost savings that this work can bring. This would not have been possible without the active encouragement of Members in all parts of the House.

Mike Freer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my local council has been doing excellent work and that Barnet council has identified one troubled family who are benefiting by £400,000 a year from the public sector? What additional help can the Department give to good councils such as Barnet in tackling this problem?

Eric Pickles: When my hon. Friend was leader of Barnet council he was a very early adopter of this intervention model. As he rightly points out, it is not as though that money is spent terrible wisely; the majority is simply spent on reacting to the troubled family rather than positively getting them on side. Thanks to the work of my hon. Friend and of hon. Members all around the Chamber, we can jointly say that we have made significant progress on troubled families.

Barry Sheerman: Does the Secretary of State agree, though, that those of us on both sides of the House who want this policy to come to fruition and to work well are finding it very difficult at the grass roots, especially in an area that I know well, education, with people in schools saying that it is still very difficult to get a link between the Department for Work and Pensions, the Work programme and the police—across the agencies and Ministries? Will he talk to colleagues in other Departments to try to help to make this a real success?

Eric Pickles: Absolutely. There is an intense understanding of the need for co-operation across Government. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular local authority in mind and would write to me or speak to me after questions, I will personally intervene.

Redundancy (Local Government)

John Spellar: What his policy is on redundancy payments to senior local government officers; and if he will make a statement.

Brandon Lewis: Excessive payouts to senior local authority staff have been too frequent. Thanks to the Localism Act 2011, local taxpayers can now see and challenge how their money is being spent on pay and reward, including redundancies. We are also scrapping regulations that saw councils pay out inflated severance packages to chief executives in order to avoid a lengthy and costly review process.

John Spellar: When the chief executive of Tory Kent county council left after 16 months with a £420,000 pay- off, the then local government Minister, now Tory party chairman, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), described this as “disturbing” and said:
	“I find dipping into the public purse to make such an eye-watering pay-off unacceptable”.
	Yet shortly thereafter the Minister’s colleague, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, hired this individual as director general of civil service reform. Does he think that this sets a good example?

Brandon Lewis: The right hon. Gentleman has outlined exactly why the changes we are making are so needed.

Fire and Rescue Service

Alison Seabeck: What assessment he has made of the local government finance settlement 2013-14 and its effect on fire services in Devon and Somerset; and if he will make a statement. [R]

Brandon Lewis: Grant reductions to the fire and rescue authorities are back-loaded in the spending review period, allowing them to make sensible savings without impacting on the quality of local services. Rightly, operational activities are decided by each authority, subject to local consultation.

Alison Seabeck: I declare an indirect interest in the interests of my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford). On 6 December, during a visit to Taunton, the Minister seemed impressed by Devon and Somerset fire service’s plan to make significant —I repeat, significant—savings through efficiencies and lower fuel costs by purchasing light rescue pumps, yet when push came to shove, the fire service, ravaged by cuts and trying to find innovative ways to reduce costs, was told, “Sorry, no, you can’t have those pumps.” Why did he change his mind in the space of a few weeks?

Brandon Lewis: As the hon. Lady outlined, I had a very good visit to Somerset and saw some of the plans that people have for how they want to take things forward to save money, which is exactly what many fire
	authorities across the country should be looking at. It is also why Devon and Somerset will be receiving £2.7 million of capital money in 2013-15.

Local Government Finance

Graham Evans: What steps he is taking to encourage sensible savings by local authorities.

Eric Pickles: I published a document called “50 Ways to Save” with, as the title suggests, no less than 50 great ideas for sensible savings that councils can adopt. Our fair funding deal and council tax freeze will give all councils time to put these ideas into practice.

Graham Evans: I thank my right hon. Friend for visiting God’s own county of Cheshire over the weekend. Will he share with the House what guidance his Department is giving to local authorities such as Cheshire West and Chester and Halton to help to identify wasteful spending?

Eric Pickles: It was indeed a pleasure to visit Cheshire over the weekend and see so many active Conservatives. We have set an example. My own Department’s procurement spend has come down by 54% and that of the Government’s procurement card has decreased by 87%, while spending on technology has dropped by 69%. We recognise that it is not our money, but the public’s money. Unlike the Labour spendthrifts, we have been prepared to deal with it face on.

Steve Reed: The cross-party Local Government Association estimates that, over a five-year period, it costs local authorities more than £200 million because the Government force them to publish statutory notices in local papers instead of online, where it would be more convenient for local people to access them. Why will the Secretary of State not allow local authorities to make that sensible saving?

Eric Pickles: This is something that we are actively considering, but we need to bear in mind the importance to the local economy of local newspapers. We have made clear to local editors that the days of those statutory notices appearing in newspapers are numbered.

Topical Questions

Gordon Henderson: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Eric Pickles: A written statement has been laid detailing the final local government financial settlement. Despite the need to tackle Labour’s deficit, last year councils were still spending £114 billion. The overall reduction in spending power this April, taking into account the new health funding grant, is just 1.3%. Our decentralising reforms mean that an estimated 70% of council income will now be raised locally. Councils are now in the driving seat to help firms and support local jobs.

Gordon Henderson: My right hon. Friend has often said that planning laws should treat all applicants in the same way. That being the case, will he undertake to write to the planning department at Swale borough council to make clear its responsibilities to determine applications from both the settled and the Traveller communities in the same way, and to refer the planning officers to the document in which that policy is set out?

Eric Pickles: Of course. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), who is responsible for planning, will have heard what has just been said. We have been clear that we want to ensure that the Traveller community gets a fair deal. Indeed, we have been doing all kinds of things relating to commercial dealings, education and health, and it is massively important that the community is treated with exactly the same level of respect as the rest of the population.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Will the Minister tell the House how many additional affordable homes he expects communities to approve for a share of community infrastructure levy receipts? How many affordable homes are likely to be lost as a result of the changes that the Growth and Infrastructure Bill will make to section 106 agreements? Will the Minister produce figures to show the net impact of these totally contradictory policies?

Nicholas Boles: The hon. Lady asked three questions, so I will not necessarily answer all of them in full. First, she will be well aware that the measures in the Growth and Infrastructure Bill tackle those affordable housing developments that will never happen in current market conditions. We believe that some homes are better than an unrealistic target of homes that will never come through. Secondly, she will also be aware that, as well as the Bill’s measures, we announced an additional £300 million to support further affordable housing. There is no question but that the combination of those measures will produce a net increase, both in market homes and affordable homes.

Chris White: Last week Warwickshire county council unveiled Operation Footfall, an initiative that will give local business groups the opportunity to bid for up to £30,000 to develop ideas to encourage people to shop in our town centres. Will the Minister join me in congratulating the county council, and will he detail what support the Government are giving to improve our town centres?

Mark Prisk: I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Warwickshire county council in that context. We have a settled programme looking at making sure that we strengthen the way in which the planning system works and ensuring that the business rates are reduced for the smallest of firms. However, I think that the key issue, rather than the individual programmes, is the question of how we ensure that high streets today adapt to the new world of online shopping. Consumer habits have
	changed. We are standing ready to work with our high streets to make sure that they can adapt in that new environment.

Chi Onwurah: On Saturday, I met the Newcastle youth council to discuss its report, which I shall pass to the Secretary of State, on the impacts of his £100 million of cuts to the council budget. Its members explained that many children cannot understand the magnitude of the cuts and have offered to give up sweets or donate their pocket money to save local libraries, swimming pools and youth services. Does the Secretary of State understand the magnitude of his cuts and their impact on young people in Newcastle? If so, what is he going to do about it?

Don Foster: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question, but perhaps she is not aware that the spending power reduction in Newcastle is lower than the national average and that there will be £2,516 per dwelling. I am sure that she will also welcome the additional £2 million of new homes bonus that has gone to her local authority.

Karl McCartney: I expect that my right hon. Friend will agree that local authorities need to balance their budgets by making efficiency savings, rather than by imposing council tax rises on hard-pressed taxpayers. Does he also concur that billing residents in Lincoln for flights to China, external consultancy fees for possible Traveller sites and self-aggrandising pseudo-green energy summits will not inspire much sympathy if families in Lincoln see an increase in their rates?

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point. In these difficult times, when councils are expected to play their part in reducing Labour’s deficit, it is difficult to look electors in the eye and explain why councillors have been using this money for self-aggrandisement. I hope that the councils to which he referred will take heed.

Kelvin Hopkins: Some 8,000 families are on Luton borough council’s housing waiting and transfer lists, yet the Conservatives’ policies will force thousands of low-income Londoners to seek homes elsewhere, with Luton a primary target. Does the Minister accept that the Government’s policy is not only unjust, but a recipe for social chaos?

Mark Prisk: I do not accept that. We have made it clear to councils that out-of-borough changes are not desirable. It is not right, as happened in the ’70s, for large groups of people to be dumped a long way from their homes. That is why we changed the law last year so that councils have to take into account the suitability for each individual. Dumping is something that we will challenge. The law is clear and the hon. Gentleman has my support on the matter.

Lorely Burt: Given that the number of empty homes fell by more than 21,000 in 2011, which is the biggest drop since 2004, does my right hon. Friend agree that local solutions, supported by central Government, provide the best means of tackling the long-standing problem of empty homes?

Don Foster: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for recognising the success that our empty homes policy has already had. She is right that local decisions are the best way forward. That is why we have given local councils the ability to increase the council tax on empty properties, introduced the new homes bonus and increased the flexibility in a range of other areas to get even more empty properties back into use. Local decisions are undoubtedly the best way forward.

Julie Hilling: During the inquiry of the Communities and Local Government Committee into welfare reform, a housing provider in one of the universal credit pilot schemes reported that it would lose one proposed new-build property a week from its development programme because of welfare reform. Has the Minister assessed the impact of welfare reform on the ability of social housing providers to build new homes, and can he tell us how many proposed new homes will now not be built?

Don Foster: The hon. Lady is in a rather difficult position, given that she supported a Government who caused us to lose 421,000 social homes and who saw the benefits bill, the housing benefit bill and the council tax bill double. Labour Members now say that we need to take tough decisions. That is what we are having to do to sort out the mess created by the Labour Government.

Marcus Jones: Recent figures reveal that councils have increased their reserves by £4.5 billion over the past five years and that those reserves now stand at almost £13 billion. Does my right hon. Friend agree that councils that have reserves should not be hoarding cash while complaining about the changes to Government grant, but should be using that cash to protect front-line services, keep council tax down and support the hard-pressed council tax payer?

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point, although the situation has moved on since he got that figure. It is now £16 billion, which represents the largest ever council reserves, not including schools, so it is difficult to say that local authorities are hard-pressed. We need them to use their balances sensibly while taking measures to get costs out of their base.

Natascha Engel: Two elderly constituents who live in a retirement complex recently received a bill for £200 from their managing agent completely out of the blue. Managing agents of leasehold housing are completely unregulated, so those elderly constituents have nowhere to turn either to appeal or to demand a review. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that managing agents of leasehold housing are brought under the regulation of the Financial Services Authority?

Don Foster: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising an important issue. Many Members of all parties are concerned about managing and letting agents. As she will know, a detailed investigation is being carried out, and as I have said before from the Dispatch Box, the Government are listening. After we have seen that report, we will bring forward recommendations.

Andrea Leadsom: The iconic Silverstone circuit is adjacent to the village of Silverstone in my constituency. Silverstone has grown by several hundred houses over the past few years. A further application for more than 200 houses is being strongly fought by local people, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has called it in for review. I appreciate that he cannot comment on individual cases, but will he take into account the real conflict between the development of that nationally important circuit and having yet more housing on its doorstep containing people who do not like the noise it generates?

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend is quite right that I cannot comment on planning, but she has made her point most forcefully.

Andrew Gwynne: The Government’s own research suggests that more than 42% of people affected by the bedroom tax will not be able to make up the financial difference and will instead go into arrears. I asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions this question last Monday and did not get an answer. Perhaps the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government can answer instead. Given the Government’s own research, how many people does his Department expect will now lose their homes?

Eric Pickles: One would think that the Labour party had not been committed to doing precisely this when it was in government, and that it was not prepared to make such sensible decisions. A few moments ago the Under-Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr Foster), clearly demonstrated the number of houses that have more than two bedrooms empty and rightly pointed out that exactly the same arrangements existed for the private sector under the Labour Government. We are introducing uniformity between the private and public sectors.

Mark Pritchard: On the important issue of social cohesion, does the Secretary of State agree that there is no room in any community in the United Kingdom for sharia law-controlled zones?

Eric Pickles: Of course sharia law should not have control, but it is important for us to recognise the significant number of Muslim organisations that have rightly condemned the patrols in question. We need neighbours to feel that they can walk the British streets safely no matter what their background or sexual orientation.

Diana Johnson: Last year, the then Housing Minister proposed outlawing council tenants from sub-letting, with up to two years in prison or a £50,000 fine. Now the Government are advising people to sub-let to cover the bedroom tax. Do the Government actually know what they are doing?

Mark Prisk: I am sorry that the Labour party does not understand this issue. As the Under-Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr Foster), rightly pointed out, a substantial number of households have two or more spare bedrooms. Is it right that the 250,000 people who are living in overcrowded
	accommodation should simply allow that to persist? Why did the Labour party not do anything about that in 13 years? That was an abject failure on its part.

Charlotte Leslie: There is concern that the local government finance settlement penalises councils such as Bristol by using old data for the allocation of local authorities into damping bands. Will the Minister meet me to discuss that further?

Brandon Lewis: The short answer is yes, I am happy to.

Helen Goodman: At the moment, people from some eastern European countries are entitled to housing benefit and council tax benefit, but not to income-related jobseeker’s allowance. Following the localisation of council tax benefit, will those people be entitled to that benefit or will it be a matter of discretion for each local authority?

Eric Pickles: It is entirely localised; it is a matter for local councils to determine.

Bob Neill: Has my right hon. Friend seen the recent Ofcom report that criticises the London borough of Tower Hamlets for what is described as political advertising? Under those circumstances, will he revisit the strength and effectiveness of the local authority publicity code?

Eric Pickles: I was shocked to read that report and I am very unhappy with what is going on in the borough. I will look as a matter of urgency at putting the publicity code on to a statutory basis.

Paul Goggins: According to a recent survey, more than 500 families in social housing in my constituency would like to move to a smaller home when the bedroom tax is introduced. Given that those properties simply do not exist, does the Minister have any advice for my constituents, or will they simply have to join the 3,500 local families who face paying £12 or £22 extra in rent?

Don Foster: The Government have already put in place a number of measures to help people such as those the right hon. Gentleman describes. HomeSwap Direct is now available, and there is additional funding in local authority budgets to assist those who wish to move into the privately rented sector, with still more money for areas where rents are increasing.

Peter Luff: Will the Minister explain to me and the communities of south Worcestershire why the Planning Inspectorate measures the existence
	of a five-year supply of land for housing not on the basis of planning permissions granted, but on completions achieved?

Nicholas Boles: Planning permissions that have been granted and are still viable will count towards any local authority’s five-year housing supply. They are withdrawn only in exceptional circumstances when it is clear that they can never be fulfilled.

Luciana Berger: Last month at the Come Together conference in Liverpool, political and faith leaders from across the country called on the Government to think again about the unfair distribution of local government cuts. Places such as Liverpool will lose £252 per head while the Prime Minister’s local authority of West Oxfordshire will lose just £34 per head. Will the Secretary of State listen to the message of the Come Together conference and look again at how the cuts can be redistributed fairly?

Eric Pickles: Liverpool has received a very generous settlement—far more generous than that of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s constituency. The hon. Lady must understand that the level of grant allocated to Liverpool far exceeds the money that is being taken away. She will recognise that under this system, with the city deal and the extra help and considerations, Liverpool has a far better deal than it would have had under Labour.

Greg Mulholland: Does the Secretary of State share the dismay of the residents of Otley, where the Labour-controlled town council has introduced a record-breaking 14.5% increase in the precept to pay for swanky new town council offices?

Eric Pickles: The good people of Otley live very close to Harrogate but no one would describe them as moneyed folk. I suspect that they are feeling pretty angry about that increase, and that they will punish at the ballot box those councillors who put self-aggrandisement above the needs of the population.

Paul Flynn: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that Newport council, and Leicester council on which our friend the late David Taylor served, were selling council houses in a fair, sustainable way for more than a decade before the dawn of Thatcherism? Does he acknowledge his debt to those pioneering Labour authorities?

Eric Pickles: That interesting view no doubt has some weight in a parallel universe. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will support the Government’s push to increase the sale of council houses to their tenants. I look forward, for the first time ever, to hands across the Chamber.

Banking Reform

Christopher Leslie: Urgent Question: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Government’s approach to banking reform.

Greg Clark: The Government have today laid before the House the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill and their response to the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards report, which was published on 21 December 2012 following the commission’s pre-legislative scrutiny of a draft Bill.
	I thank and pay tribute to the members of both the Independent Commission on Banking and the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. The two commissions, whose membership comprises some of the most distinguished policy makers and formidable intellects in the world, have between them shaped a set of reforms to British banking that will lead the world and set an example to other countries in the seriousness, radicalism and meticulousness of the changes that are proposed.
	The Bill published today reflects their painstaking work and the Government have accepted almost all their recommendations. The reforms address what the Chancellor has called the British dilemma—how Britain can be a leading global financial centre with more than its fair share of international trade in financial services while at the same time not exposing ordinary working people in this country to the catastrophic risks of banks failing.
	The reforms were and are necessary because the previous regime was tested and failed. UK taxpayers had to bail out the banks with £65 billion of the hard-earned money of ordinary working people, while those who had taken a one-way bet with that money slunk away, losing nothing more than their jobs, and sometimes not even that. The anger that the country feels about what happened must be channelled into change to reset Britain’s banking system. The objective of the Bill—proposed by Vickers and endorsed by the commission—is that any failure of any bank in future should not impose a cost on the taxpayer and not interrupt for a second vital banking services. That is a high ambition, but one that is appropriate for a country with the reputation for financial stability and confidence, which has for centuries been one of Britain’s chief assets in the world.
	As is well known, the Bill will erect a ring fence around the core operations of banks headquartered and regulated in the UK. Within that ring fence, banks must be completely insulated from activities such as using depositors’ funds to speculate for the banks’ own benefit in capital markets.
	As a result of the commission’s recommendations, the Government are making a number of further changes to the Bill. First, in the acute phrase of my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), which will permanently enter the lexicon of banking, the ring fence will be “electrified”. The regulator will be given the power to order the full separation of any bank that attempts to undermine the ring fence. Directors of the
	banks will be personally responsible for ensuring that their banks comply with the ring-fencing rules, and the Prudential Regulatory Authority will conduct an annual review of the operation and adequacy of the ring-fence rules.
	Secondly, there are explicit provisions on the face of the Bill for the principal aspects of ring-fencing, including that there should be separate boards of directors, remuneration arrangements, treasury management operations, balance sheet management and human resource management of ring-fenced banks.
	Thirdly, the Bill gives us an opportunity to make an historic change in the competitive environment in UK banking. Competition is essential to ensure that customers benefit from innovation and from demanding customer service and efficiency from their banks. That has not always been customers’ experience in the past. As well as bringing in a seven-day automatic account switching service from September this year, the Government will take steps to tackle the cosy arrangement whereby the banks determine how payment systems will be run. Why should it be necessary in 2013 for a cheque to take six days to clear, with the banks and not the customers scooping up the interest on the balances during the delay? Why should a new bank have to beg an incumbent bank for permission to use their payment system? We will therefore require access to payment services that are fair, reasonable and transparent. The commission has rightly emphasised the importance of competition, and I am grateful to it for propelling that drive further, as I am to my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) for what she has done on greater competition in banking, which has been a personal crusade of hers.
	The fourth and final change is that more parliamentary scrutiny will be built into the secondary legislation that implements what is a high-level Bill. Drafts of the principal statutory instruments to be made will be made available to the House before Second Reading, and the Government accept the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on the type of scrutiny each should receive.
	These are historic reforms, but it is appropriate that, in our country—directly and indirectly, 2 million people work in the industry, it is our biggest export earner, and contributes £1 in every £8 of our tax revenue—we take the steps necessary to restore confidence in, and to, an industry that has fallen so far. There is much scrutiny of the Bill before us, both here and in the House of Lords, and I look forward very much to our discussions during the weeks and months ahead.

Christopher Leslie: If the Government believed this issue was important, would the Chancellor have not made a statement to the House of Commons today? It should not take an urgent question for Parliament to hear why the Government are taking such a half-hearted approach to banking reform.
	In a week when our national banks are facing record-breaking fines for LIBOR manipulation, when the Financial Services Authority is struggling to get a fair deal on payment protection insurance mis-selling for small businesses, whose customers have been mis-sold interest rate hedging products, when we see the bumper bonus season continuing to roll on and on for banking executives as if nothing had happened, and in a week when all this
	suggests we should be getting serious about real reform, what has the Chancellor said in his seaside speech today? He has fudged the tough stance recommended by the Vickers report, and has stopped short on backstop powers and legislation for the leverage ratio envisaged by the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, a commission that the Chancellor himself agreed to set up last summer.
	I have to ask the Minister: why then does it feel as though the Chancellor has to be dragged kicking and screaming towards serious reform? Is it because, despite all the rhetoric and feigned concern, the Government know they face certain defeat in the House of Lords on the sensible recommendations of the parliamentary commission, and so think it best to try and salvage something from what is in reality a strategic retreat? Why will the Minister not legislate for a full reserve power for total separation of retail and investment banking if ring-fencing does not work, something that we called for last year and the commission specifically recommended? Surely it would be sensible to legislate now, not just if one or two individual banks misbehave, but in case ring-fencing fails the sector as a whole. He may think he has found a cunning ploy, but stopping short with only half the backstop powers just means that they are unlikely to be used. Corporate lawyers across the City will be rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of taking on the regulator on a case-by-case basis. Worse still, why is he ducking the main conclusion of the Vickers report? Specifically, why is he refusing to adopt the commission’s recommendations on the leverage ratio and rein in the over-exposure of banks whose excessive risk-taking caused the problems in the first place?
	Should there not be a clause in the Bill so that regulators can restrain such hazardous behaviour? Does the Minister agree that the implementation of the Bill needs a full parliamentary review on a regular basis, with genuine scrutiny of detailed secondary legislation on exactly how ring-fencing will work in practice? If the commission recommends a tougher code of conduct for bankers, proper professional qualifications and a fiduciary duty of care for customers, together with stronger controls on bonuses and remuneration, will he accept its judgment in the Bill?
	With the economy flatlining and no plan for growth, why is there nothing in the Bill to improve the funding for lending scheme? We should not still be seeing lending to businesses falling further and further, month after month. The Minister has to realise that the public, the taxpayers and Parliament want to tackle this issue once and for all. The Bill needs further amendment, and if the Government do not have the courage to radically reform the banks, we will.

Greg Clark: I had rather hoped for a serious response to a serious matter. When the Bill has its Committee stage, I hope the hon. Gentleman, with whom I am happy to work on the details, will be able to make some more substantial reflections than those he has offered the House today. Frankly, the idea that the Opposition should have the brass neck to table an urgent question on banking reform is almost unbelievable. At no point in 13 years of power did they show a scintilla of urgency in facing up to, never mind solving, the catastrophic absence of banking reform that led to the financial
	crisis being particularly damaging to this country. The failure of the botched regulatory system they introduced in 1997 has played a large part in the burden that the ordinary working people of this country are still having to shoulder today to bail out the banks. They were in office after the crisis, too. Even then they did nothing urgent apart from hurriedly plunge their heads in the sand to hope that the nightmare would pass.
	It has fallen to this Government—as it regularly does, I am afraid—urgently to clear up the chaos in which Labour left the country. It should not have taken so long, but since the Government have been elected—from the beginning of our tenure in 2010—we have set up the Independent Commission on Banking, which has done a superb job, and we have created a separate conduct regulator and a prudential regulator that are now on the statute book. Why did we need to wait for this Government to be elected to do that? Why did Labour not set up a parliamentary commission on banking standards? [Interruption.] Of course, I will answer the pitifully few points that the hon. Gentleman made.
	The hon. Gentleman asked, perfectly reasonably, why we had not given the Bank of England the power to split up the whole banking system. One of the principal reasons for not doing so was that the Governor of the Bank of England, in evidence to the commission, said that he did not want that power. It would seem odd to foist on the Governor a power that he does not want. The hon. Gentleman also asked why we did not adopt the higher backstop ratio. One concern expressed was by building societies worried about being disadvantaged by that. That was a concern we had.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about a full review. If he had read closely the statement we published in response to the commission’s report, he would have known that the PRA would conduct a full annual review of the ring-fencing rules, and we will obviously act on any recommendations that it makes. He also asked about further recommendations that might come from the commission, which is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester. The hon. Gentleman seems surprised that, having set up the commission, we might be interested in taking seriously its recommendations. I hope it is apparent from our response today that we take its recommendations very seriously, and I look forward to its further recommendations, particularly on competition, which have a great deal to offer. I greatly respect the commission’s work and look forward to making time available when the next report is published to make the necessary changes to the Bill to accommodate the recommendations.

Andrew Tyrie: The commission will look carefully at the detail that the Government have published today, but in the meantime I warmly welcome the Government’s acceptance of several of our key proposals, including on electrification of the ring fence.
	Last night, journalists were briefed by the Treasury that the Government had also accepted our proposal that an external assessment should be made before the PRA could exercise its reserve power, but there is no mention of that in the Government’s response. Will the Minister confirm that such an assessment will be provided for in the Bill?

Greg Clark: Of course. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and the other members of the commission. It might not be known just how many hours of the day they are working on it, but they are doing a service to the country in doing so. We accept his recommendation. This is a high-level Bill and we have said that we will introduce amendments to reflect the recommendations. When we do that, we will invite him to consider whether they appropriately address his recommendations.

Pat McFadden: I welcome the change of heart announced by the Chancellor today. It is in contrast to the dismissive noises that came from the Government when our report was published just before Christmas. I am sure that that change of heart had nothing to do with the vision of amendments in the other place being supported by one of the Chancellor’s predecessors, Lord Lawson, a former Cabinet permanent secretary and the new Archbishop of Canterbury.
	I would like to ask the Minister why today’s response was silent on the commission’s recommendation for a general reserve power for the sector as a whole. I must correct him: if adopted, such a decision should not be left to the Bank of England, but be taken by the Chancellor.

Greg Clark: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s question, to whom I extend my thanks for serving with distinction on the commission.
	I said that the Bank of England did not want a general reserve power, but the right hon. Gentleman made the perfectly valid point that it might not necessarily be a choice for the Bank. It seems to me, however, that the power to break up any individual bank is a very strong one, and quite rightly, as the commission recommended, it would make the ring fence more impenetrable. Nevertheless, to provide for a reserve power in this Bill that would change the whole system would, in effect, be a different policy. I understand the reasons for wanting to do that, as many distinguished members of the commission do, but changing the whole policy would deserve the scrutiny of a Bill of its own—any future Government would be free to introduce such a Bill. To have it as a rider to a Bill designed to implement the Vickers report would be the wrong step forward.
	Finally, as for accepting amendments, there are several Members of this House who have served on Bill Committees with me in the past. My demeanour, now and throughout the passage of the Bill, will be to listen to good and sensible suggestions from wherever they come—not to treat this as an exercise in partisanship, but to try to find consensus on the best system for financial regulation in this country.

Peter Lilley: Is my right hon. Friend confident that the very welcome proposals he has announced will not be swept away by the tsunami of regulations bearing down on us from Europe under the Single Market Act, even though none of those regulations creates a single new opportunity for financial services businesses to trade on the continent and all of them result in the transfer of power from this country to Europe to regulate our most important industry?

Greg Clark: My right hon. Friend is right when he talks about our most important industry—certainly in terms of exports and what it contributes to the taxes that pay for public services. It is significant that more euros are traded in this country than across the entire eurozone. For that reason, we need to continue to have access to the single market and to argue—as I and the Chancellor do in ECOFIN after ECOFIN—to ensure that we secure our interests there. That is a constant fight, but I know that I and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will always take that view when we are in Brussels.

Andrew Love: I am a member of the commission, and we will of course examine the detail included in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman’s reasons for not including a reserve power require further explanation. The Chancellor said that our commission ought not to unpick the consensus. We have taken evidence from a wide range of people—academics, bankers and others—who have all supported our recommendations on electrifying the ring fence. Will the Minister again give serious consideration to the recommendations that we have made?

Greg Clark: I do take seriously those recommendations, but this is not a difference between just the Government and the commission. The shadow Chancellor himself said only a little while ago that
	“there is no need to break up institutions but there has got to be clear separation.”
	I think people across all parts of the House have come to the same view on this, but I am respectful of the conclusions that the hon. Gentleman has reached.

John Redwood: If break-up and segregation may be necessary for a bank in a future crisis, why do the Government not understand that they may need those techniques to deal with the inherited, still very serious banking crisis that we are living through, which is preventing the financing of a full recovery? Will the Government look at what they can learn from their studies to sort out the problem of RBS today, which is our biggest obstacle to recovery?

Greg Clark: My right hon. Friend makes a forceful point. The legislation is about the future. It is quite right that it should proceed with consideration and that we should not introduce things that might have unintended consequences without adequate consideration in this House. The Government are obviously the major shareholder in RBS. It is important that RBS should be returned as swiftly as possible to private hands. The current situation is far from ideal, and I know that my right hon. Friend shares our ambition on that.

Stewart Hosie: It is right that the taxpayer should never again be on the hook for the bad decisions taken by investment banks or the bad regulation that allowed them to be taken. I therefore welcome the ring-fencing and the provision to separate a given bank if necessary. However, I am not yet convinced of the need for the reserve power to separate any bank. Does the Minister envisage any circumstances under which the Government might include the reserve provision to separate a bank in this or future legislation?

Greg Clark: I confess that I did not quite understand whether the hon. Gentleman’s point was that he objects to the power to separate any particular bank or the general point, but we can talk about it afterwards. It is important that the regulator—the Bank of England—should have the ability to address a bank that breaches the rules and that does not respect the integrity of the ring fence with consequences, those consequences being full separation.

Stephen Williams: Does my right hon. Friend agree that consumers and businesses want the existing banking sector to receive the hot blast of competition and that, in order for that competition and choice to exist, we need a regulatory regime that will allow in new entrants, especially those that specialise in community-based banking and in lending to small businesses and social enterprises? Might not one such new entrant emerge from the break-up of the state-controlled RBS?

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend and I completely agree about the need for more competition in the banking sector. It is one of the features of the banking crisis that it has resulted in a concentration in the number of banks. Frankly, there were never enough in the first place, and we need urgently to see more new entrant banks of all types coming in. We are working with the existing regulatory authorities and, through amendments to the Bill, we will transform the state of competition in the banking sector. I very much hope to see an infusion of new energy and talent into the banking system in this country.

John Mann: Given that we have the highest high street lending rates in the European Union, along with the lowest high street saving rates, why is not the Minister proposing the break-up of Lloyds TSB in addition to that of RBS? That would immediately create proper competition in the banking sector.

Greg Clark: As I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would acknowledge, the Government have promoted the sale of Northern Rock to Virgin, for example, to try to encourage new entrants, and he will see more of that in the future. On interest rates, those that are being paid on mortgages and small business loans at the moment are very much lower than they would have been had we not taken the necessary action on the economy to keep them competitive.

Mark Garnier: The British Bankers Association has said this morning that the electrification of the ring fence might cause some uncertainty in the City. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only banks that need to be worried about the future are those that game the ring fence and try to burrow underneath it?

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Any bank can have complete certainty that it will not be subject to being broken up if it respects the ring fence. Indeed, given the standing of the City of London, it is important that we all have confidence and trust in the British banking system, on which the credibility of that standing depends. The reforms recommended by Sir John Vickers and his commission will achieve precisely that.

Kevin Brennan: Is not the truth that, by failing to take full reserve powers, the Chancellor has not so much electrified the ring fence as raised it by a mere millimetre? Why were the full recommendations of the commission not implemented?

Greg Clark: We have addressed that point. Obviously, it is the behaviour of any particular bank that will cause problems, and the sanctions against such behaviour are clear. If a bank breaches the ring fence that has been established, it will be split up. That is as clear as day to the directors of every bank, who, by the way, will now have a personal responsibility to respect the ring fence.

James Duddridge: About 650 people work for Lloyds TSB in Southend, with a similar number working for RBS. In addition, there are about 20 branches, each employing 10 individuals. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this banking reform is just as much about helping the banking industry in the whole of the United Kingdom as it is about the square mile of the City or Canary Wharf?

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the real tragedies, and one of the things that makes me most angry about the declining reputation of banking in recent years, is that the reputations of many hundreds of thousands of people who work in banks up and down the country and who have chosen banking as a career because of its associations with probity and respect in the community have been besmirched by the actions of a very small number of people. Our purpose in restoring the reputation of financial services in this country is also to allow those people to go to the pub without being teased and ribbed because they work in a bank, which is something that should never have happened to them.

Alison McGovern: My constituents want banks to serve industry and our community, not themselves. May I try the Minister yet again on the question of full reserve powers? Why should the evidence of one institution hold sway over that expert commission?

Greg Clark: It is the hon. Lady’s objective that banks should serve businesses and their customers, and that is precisely what Sir John Vickers has in mind. That is the purpose of the exercise, and it is exactly what I want to achieve. Any ring-fenced bank that strays from that purpose and neglects its core customers—its retail depositors and the other people who bank with it—by taking their money and playing with it in the casino will be broken up.

Brooks Newmark: I welcome the points the Chancellor made this morning on facilitating account switching, which I think will be most welcome to all our constituents. Will the Minister outline in a little more detail how this will work?

Greg Clark: I will certainly pass on my hon. Friend’s comments to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. What we are saying when it comes to the regulation of payment systems is that, through the Bill, we will set up a regulatory responsibility to promote competition on the part of the regulator of payment systems. One thing regulators will want to look at is how they can quickly make accounts portable between customers. That, however,
	is only one of the innovations that could be made. I mentioned in my response to the urgent question the requirement to speed up the clearing of cheques. My hon. Friend will recall that the Payments Council once introduced a statement—almost ex cathedra—to the effect that cheques would be abolished in future. What kind of contempt for the consumer does that show? It should not happen again, and it will not happen again.

Ronnie Campbell: But why are we pussyfooting with these banks? Why not just nationalise them and make them into a good public service? After all, we own half of them.

Greg Clark: As a result of the chaos of the previous Government, we almost ended up nationalising the banks. I want to see our banks back in the private sector; I want to see them competitive; I want to see them making money, providing jobs and getting credit to businesses and consumers.

Nadhim Zahawi: The Financial Services Authority says that one reason why RBS failed was the political pressure put on the regulator to ignore the risks banks were taking. It named the shadow Chancellor as one of the three politicians responsible for that. What checks and balances are in place now to ensure that that does not happen again, and has my right hon. Friend had an apology from the shadow Chancellor?

Greg Clark: One of the principal innovations was to get rid of the shadow Chancellor who was then in a position to interfere. The reason we are setting up the system and giving powers to the Bank of England and the regulator is to make it very clear that any bank that breaches the rules can forget about lobbying Ministers. The banks will be responsible to the Bank of England, which will enforce the law that I hope this House will see fit to pass.

Gregg McClymont: Let me take the Minister back to the question posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), who is a member of the banking commission. In simple language, what possible reason do the Government have for not accepting the commission’s recommendation to take that reserve power? After all, only banks that do not conform with the Government’s wishes would have anything to fear from the reserve power. Why not go on and take that power?

Greg Clark: I have explained on a number of occasions why we have not done so. One reason is that the regulator does not want that power, and a second reason is that it seems to us more appropriate that individual banks feel the consequences of their breach. The system itself does not have a mind to breach the rules; it is individual banks that do so. It is thus appropriate for the sanctions to apply to individual banks.

Charlie Elphicke: In addition to the electrification of the ring fence, has the Minister considered adding a bit of barbed wire on top? We should look
	at depositor preference, so that deposits rank above the bondholders to give extra security. What are the Government’s thoughts on that at the moment?

Greg Clark: We agree with my hon. Friend, and that will form part of the Bill.

Toby Perkins: The Minister is absolutely right to say that the reputation of our banks has never been lower. We hope that we will start to see the important changes we need. One reason for that reputation is the experience that many small businesses had with interest rate swap agreements. While many welcome the FSA announcement on that, there are still some concerns about whether people will really consider that they have had justice at the end of the process. Will the Minister confirm what representations he has made to the FSA about what it should find during the deliberations, and will he give us any assurances that the interest rate swap problems we have had in the past will not reappear in future?

Greg Clark: The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. I met the Federation of Small Businesses and the Bully-Banks organisation and I conveyed their concerns to the FSA, which the hon. Gentleman knows is set up to be the independent regulator. I think most people were relieved that the FSA proposals of last week will result in compensation for the affected businesses within a rapid time frame. What happened is totally unacceptable, and is another feature of the scandalous decline in reputation that the banks have suffered. Small businesses in particular have a right to regard their bank manager as someone who acts in their interests, rather than someone who flogs them dodgy products that they do not need in the first place. That is a breach of trust in banking. I am absolutely insistent that the FSA should conclude this process, giving full recompense to those who have been mis-sold products.

Andrea Leadsom: The retail ring fence is a good idea, but the real game-changer for banking will be the introduction of full bank account number portability, because it will break open the oligopoly banks. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is also important for the Payments Council no longer to be controlled by the big banks? Breaking open competition and introducing new challenger banks is of key importance.

Greg Clark: I thank my hon. Friend for the effort that she has devoted to promoting this agenda. It seems to me that if there is to be genuine competition, people should have a choice of banks, and it should be easy, not difficult, for them to make changes. I hope that the work that my hon. Friend is doing will be reflected in the policies that we are enshrining in the Bill, and I look forward to detailed discussions with her about how that may be possible.

William Bain: If the public are to have confidence in the new system, they need to know that lawyers or bankers will not be able to circumvent the ring-fencing regime. Can the Minister come up with a better justification for the Government’s
	not taking a full reserve power for full separation, in order to protect the public, than those that he has produced so far?

Greg Clark: The hon. Gentleman is right: we need to protect the ring fence from the ingenuity of the lawyers who are sometimes in the vicinity. The history of financial regulation shows that banks have been able to discover ways of circumventing the rules, which is why we have given the regulator robust powers to insist on the full separation into retail and investment of any bank that makes any attempt to breach those rules.

Jason McCartney: Can the Minister confirm that, under this Government, the taxpayer will never again be required to bail out the banks while a minority of bankers are picking up huge bonuses?

Greg Clark: I agree with both parts of my hon. Friend’s question.

Dave Watts: The Minister says that he wants to establish new bodies to set bonuses and pay in banks. Can he guarantee that on those boards will be ordinary customers and businesses, and that they will not be stacked with bankers’ friends?

Greg Clark: I think it important for the responsibility exercised by remuneration committees in particular to have regard to the experience of ordinary working people up and down the country. I see no reason why the way in which bonuses are thought about in boardrooms in the City should be any different from the way in which they are thought about in any other industry.

Alun Cairns: I welcome the Minister’s statement, which confirmed the Government’s policy on ring-fencing the banks and its extension to electrification. Does the Minister agree that some of the products or derivatives of investment banks—particularly fixed-rate mortgages—can offer certainty and security to retail customers, and that we need an intelligent debate about the issue?

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend is right, but I think we have already had the intelligent debate. The Government asked the commission to look into that issue in particular
	and to make recommendations, and the commission expressed the interim view that it was reasonable—as my hon. Friend says—for simple derivatives to be provided from within a ring-fenced bank. However, it wants to reflect further on whether any of its inquiries into the culture of banking may have implications for that. We will await its conclusions.

Diana Johnson: Following the bank mergers, many regional banks and building societies have gone, and we have lost the investments that they would have made at local level. Will the Minister explain how the Bill will enable areas such as Yorkshire to benefit, and can he assure us that it will not be just the south-east that benefits from the increase in the number of banks?

Greg Clark: The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. I should like very much to see banks in our great regional cities, as used to be the case: banks that can take deposits from local people and, knowing what local investment opportunities they have in the area, can establish a connection. So far it has been very difficult for new banks to obtain banking licences within a reasonable period, and to satisfy the regulatory requirements. We are doing all that we can to lower the barriers to entry, so that we can achieve exactly what the hon. Lady has described.

Guy Opperman: I welcome the proposal, as well as the fact that we are taking on the bully banks on interest rate swaps and clearing up the big banks, which have had grave deficiencies for a considerable time. Does the Minister agree that the Bill will also make it easier to create the local, regional banks that we need to provide the competition, access to finance and community trust we are trying to establish in places such as the north-east, where we are proposing a bank for that region?

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend is right about that, and it may interest the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) to know of the example that he and I were discussing in Newcastle recently. We were looking at ways in which we can make it possible for there to be a north-eastern or Tyneside bank that can specialise in the north-eastern economy.

Syria (Humanitarian Response)

Justine Greening: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on the United Kingdom’s response to the humanitarian crisis in the Syrian region. On 30 January, I attended the UN high level humanitarian pledging conference on Syria in Kuwait. The conference was co-hosted by the Emir of Kuwait and the United Nations Secretary-General, and had two objectives. The first was to raise the international profile of the deepening humanitarian crisis unfolding across the Syrian region. The second was to secure $1.5 billion of urgently needed funding requested by the UN to meet the humanitarian needs it has seen until June 2013—that represents the largest ever short-term appeal by the UN.
	The pledging conference took place at a critical point in the Syria crisis. The humanitarian needs across the region are immense and show no signs of decreasing while the fighting continues. I would like to set out some of the numbers for the House, which illustrate the severity of the situation: 743,000—nearly three quarters of a million—is the number of Syrians who have had to seek refuge outside their country; 4 million is the number of people still in need in Syria; 2 million is the number of people displaced in Syria; 60,000 is the number of Syrians killed in the conflict so far; and 26 is the number of aid workers who have been killed in Syria while helping those in desperate need.
	During my visit to Jordan just over a week ago, I was able to meet some of the people affected by the crisis. Walking through the Za’atari refugee camp and meeting families who had welcomed refugees into their homes, I was heartened by the scope of the humanitarian response, and by the resilience of mind and spirit shown by the people I met. The people of Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq and now Egypt are showing tremendous generosity, supporting the hundreds of thousands of people who have fled the violence. It is essential that the Governments of those countries receive adequate support for their efforts from the international community.
	I also commend the UN for its strong leadership of the international humanitarian response and the partnerships it has built. Its efforts have kept thousands of people sheltered and fed every month in contested, Government and opposition-held areas in Syria, and more than a million children protected against life-threatening diseases such as measles and polio. Those achievements are a reminder of the UN’s capacity and reach, if given adequate political and financial support, and demonstrate that the UK’s confidence in the multilateral aid system has not been misplaced.
	At the Kuwait conference, I announced another £50 million of new UK aid towards the UN appeals. That was in addition to the £21 million that I announced on 26 January during my visit to Jordan—£10 million of which was specifically for Jordan— and brings the UK’s total humanitarian support for the response to the Syria crisis to £139.5 million. I am very pleased to report the successful outcome of the conference. As well as the UK, more than 60 countries participated in the pledging conference and raised over $1.5 billion, exceeding the UN’s target. I welcome the generosity that was shown by donors, particularly those from the Gulf region; Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab
	Emirates together pledged $900 million. I should take this opportunity to again thank the Emir of Kuwait for hosting such an important conference.
	I also commend my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for the support provided by his Department in lobbying donor countries to attend and pledge funds at the Kuwait conference. The next priority for my Department is to see that those pledges are turned into tangible commitments so that the humanitarian agencies can scale up their activities and provide the food, shelter, health and medical care that are so urgently needed by the millions of men, women and children affected by the crisis. However, although the Kuwait conference was a success, we must be realistic. The more than $1.5 billion raised, although a great sum, will support the humanitarian response only until June. The Syrian people will still need help long after that, and the shocking level of human suffering inside and outside Syria will keep rising while the conflict continues.
	A political settlement is sorely needed. The UK remains steadfast in our support for the joint UN and Arab League special representative, Lakhdar Brahimi, in his work towards a political settlement and transition process. It is also vital that the UN-led humanitarian response be given agreement for increased access to all areas of the country, including the ability to reach people in need across conflict lines and from neighbouring countries if necessary. Until this happens, pockets of need will persist despite the UN’s best efforts. The dire humanitarian situation deserves the continued attention and support of this Government, and I commit my Department to that effort. I commend the statement to the House.

Ivan Lewis: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. The right hon. Lady and I differ on many things, but I begin by paying tribute to her for the good and important work she has done to galvanise an international response to the grave humanitarian crisis arising from the conflict in Syria. She deserves support from both sides of the House for her efforts.
	Although the international community has largely focused on the political and security aspects of the conflict, the scale of the humanitarian impact in Syria and across its borders has been enormous. As the right hon. Lady highlights, more than 700,000 people have fled unrelenting violence, 2 million Syrians are internally displaced and 4 million people are in desperate need of basic assistance.
	The situation inside Syria is abysmal. One quarter of schools and one third of public hospitals are not functioning, there are shortages of bread and medicine, and critical infrastructure has been destroyed. The UN estimates that 2 million people who have fled their homes are living without the most basic services: clean water, sanitation and electricity. The harsh winter has compounded their suffering and many are living in shelters lacking adequate insulation with no winter clothes and no blankets. Even those who still have homes are suffering from the cold, unable to heat their houses owing to shortages of fuel and electricity. With the UN estimating that the number of refugees will surpass 1 million by June, no end to their suffering is in sight.
	The success of the UN pledging conference in Kuwait last week will provide much needed support for the millions of Syrians affected by this growing crisis. I welcome the
	Secretary of State’s announcement of an additional £71 million of UK aid to Syria. Will she clarify where she expects those additional resources to be focused? As she has acknowledged, aid to Syria is a question of not only funding but humanitarian access and respect for international humanitarian law. Donors have repeatedly raised concerns about support reaching all areas of the country. There is limited capacity and expertise in both Government-held and opposition-held areas, with the conflict’s front lines constantly shifting.
	The right hon. Lady has said that we must ensure that co-ordinated aid reaches people across Syria, including agreed cross-line and cross-border work. Will she elaborate on how the Government are assisting NGOs and UN agencies to provide humanitarian access in the area? Is she suggesting that the UK would be open to funding projects outside the UN’s direct response plans?
	Questions are also being asked about a strategic response to refugees. As the right hon. Lady has acknowledged, thousands of Syrians are arriving in neighbouring countries every day, yet the humanitarian system does not have the capacity to keep up with the growing demands on registration, co-ordination or shelter. The UN estimates that only 20% of Syrian refugees are in camps. What steps is the Department taking to develop a strategic plan with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees that ensures that the needs of all refugees are being met?
	The conflict has taken a brutal toll on Syrians, more than 60,000 of whom have been killed. Those who have fled report stories of ongoing violence and human rights violations, including sexual abuse, arbitrary detention and indiscriminate shelling. A report by the International Rescue Committee identifies rape and sexual violence as primary factors in the decision of many Syrians to flee. Given that disturbing revelation, will the Secretary of State assure the House that UK aid will focus on the protection of women against sexual violence? Crucially, the humanitarian crisis will not be resolved until the conflict in Syria is resolved, and we must continue to push for a ceasefire.
	On international efforts to bring about negotiations to stop the fighting, what assessment have the Government made of reports that the head of the major opposition coalition, Moaz al-Khatib, is willing to talk to Government representatives? Will the Secretary of State update the House on what progress the Government have made in encouraging the Syrian national coalition to accept the Geneva plan as the basis for transition? What were the objectives and impact of the reported recent Israeli air strikes in Syria?
	The brutality of the Assad regime is clear for all to see, but as we seek change in Syria through a ceasefire and political process, it is essential that we do not forget the here and now suffering of the Syrian people. That is why I welcome today’s statement, and I hope that the Secretary of State will keep the House informed of developments on a regular basis.

Justine Greening: I very much appreciate the way in which the shadow Secretary of State approached his response. There was a huge effort across the international community to make sure that the donor conference was a success, and the UK certainly did as much as it could to try to make sure that that was the case. The hon. Gentleman asked how the funds would be spent. The £50 million that we donated at the conference will sit
	alongside the UN co-ordinated response to the humanitarian crisis. Of the requested $1.5 billion, about $1 billion goes to helping refugees outside Syria, and about £0.5 billion of that is planned to help people still suffering inside Syria. In relation to how we can make sure that we reach the many parts of Syria that are difficult to get to, we have to take the opportunities, and we work through humanitarian partners all the time. They are neutral and impartial but never the less have the ability to go into parts of Syria that are often contested. Some of them are Government-controlled, some opposition-controlled, but others are still contested, and as I said in my statement, they are dangerous places. We therefore support those humanitarian agencies. When I talk to the people who head up the World Food Programme, for example, they are clear that they have to take opportunities when they arise. They often find a contact whom they believe is trustworthy, and through them can gain access to a new area, and they will take that opportunity. They have to be prepared to act very quickly and flexibly. We support them in doing so, and the main concern for them in recent weeks has been funding, which is why the donor conference was so important.
	As for what the UK has done directly in Syria, we have provided medical support. We have trained—I think I am right in saying—250 health workers, and we have helped open about 130 mobile medical units that provide care. We are also providing food and shelter wherever we can. The UN Security Council has called for the Syrian authorities to provide full, immediate and unimpeded access to all areas of Syria so that humanitarian support can get through. That is absolutely vital, and we urge the opposition forces to allow unimpeded access for humanitarian actors. It is critical, if we are to be able to use that $1.5 billion effectively, that we make sure that we have the routes to get through to the people who need our support.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the strategic response, and he is quite right to flag up the fact that this humanitarian crisis is perhaps different from many others with which the Department deals. Often we are dealing with a natural disaster, and people act to tackle the aftermath. This is a humanitarian crisis that has unfolded over many months and seems likely to continue to unfold over a prolonged period. It may be that we have not seen the worst of the humanitarian crisis in relation to Syria, which is why it is vital that Assad goes, and goes now, so that the work to rebuild Syria can begin.
	We are talking with the UNHCR and other humanitarian bodies about how we can make sure that we are set up to deal with a crisis that could become significantly worse in the coming months if the violence continues. As I said in my statement, there are 2 million internally displaced people within Syria. Many of the refugees with whom I spoke a couple of weekends ago had tried their best to stay in Syria. They had moved from Homs to a different place, to a different place again and so on, but were finally left with no choice but to leave Syria. If just a fraction of the 2 million internally displaced people end up having to leave Syria and become refugees, we will see a dramatic increase in the humanitarian problems outside Syria. That is why the donor conference was so important.
	I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are looking at how we can make sure that we are positioned to take care of those people. For neighbouring countries such
	as Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Turkey, the strain and the pressure put on them are immense. We should always bear that in mind when we are looking at the support that we provide. As he rightly pointed out, most of the refugees in Jordan, for example, are not in camps but in host communities. When I was in Jordan I was told that the local education system has had to absorb 22,000 children who arrived with refugee families. There are significant challenges ahead, which is why we need to continue to keep international attention focused on a very grave humanitarian situation.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about women and girls, and he is right to do so. We have been particularly concerned to make sure that we have supported children. One in five of the people turning up at the Za’atari refugee camp that I visited was a child aged four or under. Nearly 60% of the refugees who have turned up at that camp were 30 or under. Alongside others, we are providing clinical care and counselling to women and we are helping to provide education to children. We are also providing specific support to about 1,800 women we believe are at risk of possibly being coerced into marriage. We are therefore providing support to them to ensure, wherever possible, that that does not happen. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is raising on the international stage the broader issue of preventing sexual violence in conflict, and it will be one of the subjects that we try to push internationally at the G8.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about coalition talks. There is a general recognition in the international community that the solution in Syria is a political one, which will involve talks, including between the coalition and the Government. It is clear from talking with the coalition that any future transitional Government must be one that has no Assad as part of it. I therefore come back to my earlier comments that for things to move forward, it is time for Assad to go so that the rebuilding of Syria can start.
	Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about Israeli air strikes. It is too early to speculate on exactly what happened, but we can see that ensuring stability in that region is critical. It is why the donor conference was so important, so that in the short term we have the funding in place at least to deal with the humanitarian crisis. More broadly, we need stability in the Syrian region. That will mean a political solution to the challenges and to the civil war that is under way in Syria.

Edward Leigh: Once before, in another crisis, we made the terrible mistake of arming rebels—in Afghanistan. Can the Secretary of State give an absolute commitment that in no way, either directly or indirectly or through surrogates, are we giving any aid to Syria that can be used for any offensive purposes, for military purposes or to take life?

Justine Greening: I can certainly be clear with my hon. Friend that DFID support is non-lethal: underpinning absolutely everything we do is the fact that it has to be humanitarian-focused. He is therefore right that we are not in the business of arming to perpetuate this violence. We want to see an end to it, and that will require a political solution.

Keith Vaz: I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and the work that she has done in this regard. There are 150,000 Syrian refugees in Turkey. So far, 23,500 have claimed asylum in the EU, mostly crossing the border between Greece and Turkey, and that is the pressure point as far as the EU is concerned. She mentioned many countries in her statement, but what support is being given to the Greek Government to help them to deal with this problem, which will eventually become a problem for the United Kingdom?

Justine Greening: I will need to write to the right hon. Gentleman to give him further details on that. He is right to point out that a number of countries in the EU have taken in Syrian refugees, including Sweden, which has a substantial Syrian diaspora. We need to make sure that we deal with the totality of this humanitarian crisis, and that involves making sure that when refugees end up in the EU we provide the support they need.

Martin Horwood: I strongly welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, particularly the confidence that she expressed in the UN-led multilateral response. She is right that this intolerable situation needs a regional political solution. Will she therefore tell us whether Russia attended the Kuwait conference and what constructive contributions it is making to the humanitarian and political processes?

Justine Greening: I can confirm that Russia was at the donor conference. We have pressed the Russians to work with us to get a UN Security Council resolution that will start to put in place the building blocks for a political settlement and a political solution to Syria. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, that has proved to be beyond reach to date. We very much hope that through continued discussions with the Russians and, to a certain extent, with the Chinese, we will be able to make progress at some point, but thus far the signs have not been positive.

Richard Burden: In recent months I have been able to visit camps in Turkey and Jordan for people fleeing Syria. May I endorse what the Secretary of State said about the efforts of the Governments there and elsewhere and of the international agencies, but also mention the incredible generosity of ordinary people in taking Syrian refugees into their own homes? Last night it was estimated that over 2,000 Syrians crossed the border into Jordan. Winter is now coming on, and the Za’atari camp that she mentioned faces exposure. The donor conference decisions are great, but the UNHCR co-ordinator in Jordan makes it clear that it is not the pledges of money that make the difference but the money actually getting in and being translated into action. What can we do to ensure that aid gets in and that we do not just have pledges?

Justine Greening: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The UK will certainly be doing our bit to make sure that the pledges made at the donor conference translate into real money that can make a real difference on the ground. Probably about half the $1 billion set aside to help refugees will go to those who are in Jordan. It is worth pointing out that well over 200,000 refugees have arrived in Jordan, and the total population of that country is 6 million, so in the context of its overall
	population it is a significant influx. It is therefore right that we look at what we can do to help the Jordanian Government, but also the UN agencies there, to deal with that.

Michael Ellis: The savage brutality of the Assad regime is plain for the world to see. I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Government on the work that they are doing to assist with much needed aid for people in the region. Will she join me in welcoming the fact that as a result of the conference, some of that aid that will now be coming from, and has been pledged by, the region itself, including from the Gulf states, which is particularly important in this crisis?

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I sensed at the conference that one of the most important aspects was not just the fact that the United Nations put out a call for funds that was met—it was its largest ever call for short-term funds—but, critically, that there had been real ownership of making sure that target was met by Gulf nations. Not only did Kuwait generously host the conference but key Gulf nations such as the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia and Kuwait itself made substantial donations. That was welcomed throughout the donor conference and I think it shows not only that the region itself recognises the gravity of the situation, but that it is prepared to step up to the plate and be a key partner in delivering the humanitarian aid.

Diana Johnson: The Secretary of State has commented on the political stance that China and Russia have taken. May I press her to say whether China and Russia are now making significant contributions to the humanitarian aid required?

Justine Greening: I do not believe that Russia made a significant contribution at the donor conference. The most important thing that we would like to achieve with Russia and China is a breakthrough that would enable us to have a UN Security Council resolution, which would be similar to the approach taken in Mali, where it was possible to take action as a result of a consensus across the international spectrum. That UN Security Council resolution cannot be passed at the moment, which, critically, makes it much more complex for us to be able to reach people inside Syria with humanitarian aid. It also makes it much more complex to start the political and diplomatic dialogue needed to reach a long-term settlement. That is what is needed and I am absolutely clear that, although we are providing humanitarian support, the UK has not ruled out any action. Ultimately, however, we want to press forward on a political and diplomatic route.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I was at a conference over the weekend with both Turkish and Jordanian representatives, both of whom said, independently, that the international community could do more to help with the refugee problems in their respective countries. I say to my right hon. Friend that simple things, such as blankets to keep children warm, are needed now in the camps in Jordan. Could they not be delivered quicker bilaterally—that is, we give directly to the country rather than through the UN mechanism?

Justine Greening: That is something that I have also considered, but it is clear that the UN process and logistics are well set up. The road block over recent weeks has been in funding. The channels and the people are there, but we have not been able to scale up support because the money has not been in place. The donor conference means that that money is now in place and the scale-up can take place. My hon. Friend is right to say that basic shelter is one of the key aids that we have given many of the refugees. It is freezing over there and they need to be protected from the cold.

William Bain: The UNHCR estimates that there could be more than 430,000 refugees from Syria in Jordan by the end of this year. Will the Secretary of State tell the House how the money provided by this Government will help the condition of children who have had to flee appalling conditions in Syria?

Justine Greening: One of the key things that can now happen is that the Za’atari camp itself can grow in a more structured way. That includes the establishment of a school and the development of education for children in that refugee camp. I can therefore provide the hon. Gentleman with some assurance that there is now a structure plan in place to grow the camp in order to accommodate more refugees as they turn up. That is about providing not just shelter but other things that they will need, such as education for the children and medical support.

Brooks Newmark: I wholeheartedly support the Foreign Secretary’s preventing sexual violence initiative. Can my right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary assure me that the UK Government are doing all they can to support women and girls affected by the violence, especially those affected by sexual violence?

Justine Greening: I certainly can. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has a long-standing interest in preventing sexual violence against women and girls during conflicts. It is right that he is now pursuing that issue on the international stage. As I said earlier, we have provided specific support to ensure that there is not only clinical care but counselling for the many women and children who have been through horrific experiences as they have fled the violence.

Paul Flynn: The right hon. Lady deserves gratitude for her statement and for her work in relieving suffering in Syria. Is she concerned about reports that the most merciless slaughter of women and children has been carried out by the al-Nusra Front, which is linked to al-Qaeda? Given that that group is part of the opposition, will she do all she can to ensure that the al-Nusra Front does not receive arms, comfort or support from us?

Justine Greening: I hope that I can provide the hon. Gentleman with that reassurance. We have been careful to ensure that the humanitarian agencies with which we work that offer support within Syria go through the appropriate due diligence to ensure that they are working with non-extremist groups. That is one of the complex factors that have made delivering support within Syria
	even more challenging. As he is aware, the opposition have been quite fragmented, so humanitarian agencies have had to assess whether they can work with individual groups on a case-by-case basis.

Jason McCartney: Having visited the refugee camps, does my right hon. Friend agree, as she has just indicated, that the aid is getting through to the people who have fled Syria, but that the big challenge now facing the world community is getting aid through to Syria itself? Did Russia or China indicate that they would be willing to get humanitarian aid into Syria?

Justine Greening: I do not believe that Russia was explicit in saying that it supported humanitarian aid getting into Syria. However, we have been clear, as has the international community, that the Syrian authorities and opposition should ensure that humanitarian workers have totally unimpeded access to help the 4 million people who are still in Syria. Many of those people are in areas that are still contested. It has been very challenging to ensure that there is coverage across the entire country. There are times when the humanitarian agencies have made progress and then, owing to the conflict, have had to pull back. The situation is challenging, and we need the international community to speak with one voice to urge those actors in Syria to allow humanitarian support to get through.

Andrew Gwynne: The numbers that the Secretary of State read out in her statement are truly shocking. She is right to focus on the need to get aid in and on building respect for international humanitarian law, difficult though that is to achieve. What tentative plans does her Department have to promote the long-term reconstruction of Syria after the conflict?

Justine Greening: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that in January we hosted a conference with the Syrian National Coalition to talk about how the political transition might work and the challenges that Syria will face when we get beyond the current crisis. It is vital that alongside the humanitarian work in which we are engaged, we put effort into planning for the day-after work that will have to be done. We are engaged in doing that.

John Leech: Has any assessment been made of the relative effectiveness of the aid provided by different organisations on the ground in Syria?

Justine Greening: The short answer is yes. We want to use only agencies that we can absolutely rely on. Many of the agencies that we are using have done fantastic work around the world and we know them very well. Helping those agencies to scale up is our biggest challenge. I assure my hon. Friend that we will get the most out of every single pound that is spent because it is vital that we do so.

Rehman Chishti: What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the number of Syrian refugees going into Iraq and how
	they are being treated compared with refugees in Jordan and Turkey? She will know that Iraq initially closed its border to refugees, but then opened it shortly afterwards.

Justine Greening: We know that several thousand refugees have fled across the border into Iraq. In fact, the British Government have directly provided about £2 million of support to refugees who have fled into Iraq. That is a good example of some of the challenges that we face. Iraq is itself in a reconstruction phase, yet it is now also having to cope with additional refugees fleeing from Syria. That is precisely why we should never forget just how important it is for the region to ensure that neighbouring countries that are having to take in refugees are provided with the support that they need to cope.

Bob Stewart: I understand the real dangers faced by people trying to get humanitarian aid to those inside Syria, which my right hon. Friend has mentioned. In my experience, the only way in which that can be done safely in such circumstances is for some kind of security organisation to be set up on the ground. I totally understand why a mandate from the Security Council is not possible, given the Chinese and Russian attitude, but would it be possible for a grouping from the region to get together and put troops on the ground, to provide security for the brave people who are trying to get to parts of Syria where others do not want them to get? Are we working towards that?

Justine Greening: The short answer is that we do not anticipate that at this point. We are focused on ensuring that the humanitarian agencies that we are using to help to get support into Syria have unimpeded access and channels that they can use to get support through. It is absolutely clear-cut in international law that humanitarian actors should be allowed access, and that is the route that we are using.

Guy Opperman: I welcome this international aid to Syria on a combined basis, but following on from the good colonel from Beckenham, may I invite the Secretary of State to address the issue of safe havens in Syria or on the edge of it? What prospect is there of such safe havens being established in the absence of support from Russia and China, which thus far have not been of assistance?

Justine Greening: In practice, the prospect of safe havens is virtually nil, because of course we do not have a request from the Syrian Government for any kind of military intervention. That is an incredibly important point. That country is at civil war, so it is extremely unlikely that we will be able to assure people of any kind of safe haven in a way that is realistically enforceable in practice. We must therefore ensure that the humanitarian channels are open to reach people where they are, and that when people flee Syria and seek refuge in neighbouring countries, we provide humanitarian support for them there.
	My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that we need to consider as many options as we can to provide help to people in their home country of Syria, and that is what we are trying to do. There is no doubt that it will be incredibly difficult as the crisis unfolds, but we are all trying our level best.

Points of Order

David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you can help in any way. There have been reports of gruesome practices by the Metropolitan police, which have not been denied, whereby the names of dead children have been used by undercover police agents. I put it to you that this is not simply a matter of applying for an Adjournment debate or even going to the Home Affairs Committee, which I believe is looking into the matter. I would hope that the Home Secretary would come to the House and give an explanation. As I understand it, one of the children who died was a boy of four, and another died in a car crash. Again, I emphasise that the Metropolitan police have not denied that the practice took place, although they have not confirmed it. I believe that the House is due an explanation.

Mr Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order; it will have been heard on the Treasury Bench. As an experienced Member he knows that it is for Ministers to decide whether to come to the House to make a statement, but the Home Secretary will, I feel sure, be conscious of these matters and may feel that their seriousness warrants a statement sooner rather than later.

Anne Main: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that you champion Back Benchers and their role in holding the Government to account, but it is particularly difficult for Back Benchers such as me, whose constituency contains a proposed rail freight interchange, to find out what happened in the decision-making process. The Department for Transport has been fulsome in its answers, but the same questions to the Treasury and the Department for Communities and Local Government are answered either by referring me to websites or by saying that it would involve disproportionate cost.
	Referring an hon. Member to a website does not always work and I have found out about private meetings that are not declared on websites. What more can be done to ensure that Departments do not hide behind evasive answers when Back Benchers are trying to find out about the decision-making process that has gone on?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order, and for notice of it. The content of answers is not a matter of order for the Chair, and neither is inconsistency in the way Ministers reply to similar questions. If the hon. Lady is dissatisfied with the answers she has received, she should draw the matter to the attention of the Procedure Committee. Moreover, I add in passing that without regard to the particulars of the case, with which I cannot be expected to be familiar, I have considerable sympathy for the hon. Lady in so far as she is aggrieved by the tendency of some Departments simply to refer right hon. or hon. Members to a website. That is often unavailing, and the intention of Ministers should be to help Members in pursuit of their parliamentary duties. In the best cases, that is what happens, but it ought to be the norm.

Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a great shock this morning to hear for the first time that the cost of maintaining nuclear
	waste in this country is an astonishing £67.5 billion. Last Thursday, I asked a question about another possible subsidy of £30 billion, but the Minister mysteriously concentrated on my attitude to the monarchy in his reply and did not mention the cost. Have you had any approach, Mr Speaker, from that Minister or any other Minister in the Department of Energy and Climate Change, to explain how in a time of austerity we can spend tens of billions of pounds on one energy source?

Mr Speaker: The short answer is that I have received no such indication that a Minister is planning to come to the House to speak on those matters. The hon. Gentleman may wish to pursue his interests further in subsequent questions, in so far as he thinks he has not already done so to his satisfaction, and that of others, through the ruse of an attempted point of order.

Bob Neill: rose—

Edward Leigh: rose—

Mr Speaker: The House is in a very inquisitive mood today.

Bob Neill: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 16 January this year, I initiated a Westminster Hall debate on the operation of the local government standards regime. In the course of the debate, I and other hon. Members referred to the standards regime in the London borough of Tower Hamlets and there was subsequent reporting of that. On 23 January there was a meeting of the full council of the London borough of Tower Hamlets. On the same day, the chief executive sent a letter—I have sent it to your office, Mr Speaker—the effect of which, I contend, was an attempt to gag any conversation or discussion of what had been discussed in this House. I seek your guidance on this, Mr Speaker. Am I correct in thinking that the advice given by the chief executive of the London borough of Tower Hamlets is erroneous in using the phrase,
	“the fact that those comments have been made in Parliament does not entitle Councillors to refer or repeat them in Council or elsewhere.”,
	which ignores the fact that qualified privilege does attach to a bona fide and accurate report of proceedings in this House, made without improper notice?
	Secondly, the advice is erroneous because it says that making such a report might be in breach of the member-officer code of the council, but the internal code of a council cannot override the right of qualified privilege in relation to a report of the House if all other necessary qualifications are met.
	Thirdly, the attempt by a public body to gag discussion or criticism of it that has been raised in the House is at the very least a discourtesy to the House, if not verging on the contemptuous.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for notice of it. With reference to the use of material outside the House being bona fide or not, that is a matter for the courts, and the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to occupy that territory. However, I can give what I hope is a substantive response to his point of order that is of value to him and the House.
	I am quite clear that his contribution in Westminster Hall is protected entirely by article 9 of the Bill of Rights. What he said on that occasion may not be impeached or questioned in any court or place outside Parliament. The protection of papers published under the direct authority of this House is also clear. However, the extent of the protection afforded under section 3 of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 or otherwise to the repetition in some other place of anything said in this House is, as I have indicated, a matter for the courts, as the Act makes clear—it would be quite wrong for me to offer any opinion on that question from the Chair. The hon. Gentleman may wish to take up any particular concerns he has on parliamentary freedom of speech with the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. I hope that is helpful.

Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will know that one reason I admire you so much is that you are such a doughty defender of the rights of the House in scrutinising the Executive. You will recall that last week I raised with you the fact that the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill will not be committed to the whole House tomorrow. I have been advised by the Clerks—indeed, by a very polite gentleman sitting not a million miles from you—that, although I can table a motion to commit the Bill to the whole House, as I have done, it cannot be debated. Even if Her Majesty’s Opposition or a majority of Members table such a motion, the only people who can commit a Bill to the whole House are the Government. Is that not a democratic lacuna? Is there not something wrong with our procedures? We are faced with an important Bill and constitutional issues concerning the established Church, but nobody apart from the Government has the right to commit it to the whole House.

Mr Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. What he has just said to the House is substantially correct: the Government’s motion takes precedence. My understanding is that, once the Government have tabled a motion on the matter he has in mind, another motion cannot be considered before or alongside it. The matter in question is catered for—albeit very unsatisfactorily in the mind of the hon. Gentleman—by the Standing Orders of the House. If he or others would
	like the Standing Orders to be revisited and revised, one possible course would be to approach the Procedure Committee and ask it to consider whether to do so. I accept, however, that that does not avail him tomorrow, and he has raised a serious point that he might wish to pursue.
	So far as tomorrow’s debate is concerned—I know the hon. Gentleman has not raised this matter with regard to himself—a very large number of right hon. and hon. Members will be seeking to catch my eye. My surmise is that he will be one of them. The Chair will seek to be as helpful as time allows. We will have to leave it there for now.

BILLS PRESENTED
	 — 
	Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Secretary Vince Cable, Danny Alexander, Greg Clark, Mr David Gauke and Sajid Javid presented a Bill to make further provision about banking and other financial services, including provision about the Financial Services Compensation Scheme; to make provision for the amounts owed in respect of certain deposits to be treated as a preferential debt on insolvency; to make provision about the accounts of the Bank of England and its wholly owned subsidiaries; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 130) with explanatory notes (Bill 130-EN).

Children and Families

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Secretary Michael Gove, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Secretary Chris Grayling, Secretary Vince Cable, Mr Secretary Hunt, Steve Webb, Mr Edward Timpson, Jo Swinson and Elizabeth Truss presented a Bill to make provision about children, families, and people with special educational needs; to make provision about the right to request flexible working; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 131) with explanatory notes (Bill 131-EN).

European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords]

Second Reading

Damian Green: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The European Union (Approvals) Bill simply provides for parliamentary approval of three draft EU decisions: the proposal to give legal effect to the electronic version of the Official Journal of the European Union; the proposal to agree the five-year work programme—the multiannual framework—of the EU Fundamental Rights Agency; and the draft European Council decision to maintain the number of EU Commissioners at the equivalent of one per member state. The Bill underlines the importance placed by the Government on Parliament’s role in scrutinising the work of the European Union, which is why we enacted the European Union Act 2011.
	The Government have given full consideration to all three measures and are of the view that the UK should support them. We are satisfied that they are in the best interests of the UK, and are sensible and reasonable. None has a significant domestic impact and, in particular, none will result in any additional financial burdens being imposed on the UK. The provisions in the Bill are technical in nature but will, in their own way, play an important role in the future shape of the EU. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has recently set out the need to examine the UK’s relationship with the EU. The provisions do not represent far-reaching changes, and there will be further opportunities to examine more fundamental changes in other debates.
	The Bill seeks the approval of Parliament on two proposals brought forward under a legal base of article 352 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union: the proposal to give legal effect to the electronic version of the Official Journal of the European Union; and the proposal for the next the five-year work programme, the multiannual framework, of the Fundamental Rights Agency. Article 352 allows the Union to take action to attain one of the objectives set out in the treaties, but for which there is no specific power set out in those treaties. Any proposal brought forward under this legal base must be agreed unanimously by the Council and gain the consent of the European Parliament, so that at European level there is a high bar for such a proposal to meet.
	Forthe UK to agree to this at Council, and for the required unanimity to be secured, Parliament must first give its approval. The Government have put in place further parliamentary controls for proposals brought forward under article 352 of the treaty. Section 8 of the European Union Act 2011 states that a Minister of the Crown may not vote in favour of, or otherwise support, an article 352 decision unless it is approved by an Act of Parliament. Therefore, without the agreement of Parliament a proposal brought forward under this legal base cannot be adopted.
	The EU Commission currently comprises 27 commissioners, one from each member state. The Lisbon treaty provides for a reduction, by one third, in the size of the Commission from 1 November 2014. However, the treaty also allows the European Council to alter the number of commissioners, subject to unanimous agreement. To secure Ireland’s
	ratification of the treaty, it was agreed that a decision would be taken to maintain the number of EU commissioners at the equivalent of one per member state. Section 7 of the European Union Act 2011 provides that a Minister of the Crown may not vote in favour of such a decision unless the draft decision is approved by Act of Parliament.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The previous Lord Chancellor thought that the second draft decision, on the multi-annual financial framework, did not require an Act of Parliament because it fell under article 308 of the previous treaties—now section 352 of the new treaties. Do the Government have a clear position on whether anything previously under article 308 will now always require an Act of Parliament?

Damian Green: That level has not been reached. My hon. Friend is right that the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), the previous Lord Chancellor, came to that opinion, but, as my hon. Friend will also be aware, the European Scrutiny Committee challenged the basis of the assessment, and it was found that, because the previous agreement had been made under a previous version of the EU treaties that was not specifically provided for in the 2011 Act, it did not fall within the exemption set out in the Act. That is the principle on which the Government will operate.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am extremely grateful for that clarification. The Act clearly refers to article 352, so would it be fair for the House to assume that if it is not specifically under article 352, the exemptions will not apply?

Damian Green: It is fair for the House to assume that were it equivalently done on the basis of previous treaties, the precedent set by the decision would apply, but I would hesitate, off the top of my head, to take that any further.
	I turn now to the detail, starting with the electronic version of the Official Journal of the European Union. The Official Journal is the gazette of record for the EU. It is published every working day and records the decisions made and legislative acts of the EU institutions. The electronic version of the Official Journal has existed in parallel with the print version for some years, but a European Court of Justice judgment found that only the printed version was authentic. EU legislation is necessary, therefore, to enable the electronic version to have legal effect.
	The EU institutions believe that if publication of the electronic version is given legal effect, access to EU law would be faster and more economical. At the moment, anyone wishing to access the authentic version must order and pay for printed copies of the Official Journal. This proposal will not affect those who wish to continue to have access to the printed version. This is a sensible measure in a world in which electronic communications have revolutionised how information is distributed and accessed. It will have no significant impacts or effects on the UK.
	The second proposal for which the Bill seeks to provide approval is the work programme of the Fundamental Rights Agency, established in 2007. Its role is to support the European institutions and member states—when
	they are acting within the scope of EU law—to take measures and actions that respect fundamental rights. The agency does this through the collection and analysis of information and data. It also has a role in communicating about and raising awareness of fundamental rights.
	The agency’s work is regulated by a five-year work programme setting out the thematic areas of the agency’s activity. These must include the fight against racism, xenophobia and related intolerance and be in line with the European Union’s current priorities. The work programme, defined by the Council of Ministers, gives the member states control over where the agency undertakes its work.
	The agency’s first work programme covered the period 2007-12. In December 2011, the Commission brought forward a proposal for a new work programme to cover the period 2013-17. The proposal was amended through negotiations. The measure for which approval is sought very much continues the themes set out in the previous work programme, although there are some adjustments in the terminology.
	The agreement of a new work programme will not alter the tasks of the agency, and nor will it change the agency’s role or remit. The work programme does not set out or define these elements. Those are set out in a completely different instrument—the agency’s establishing regulation—and that instrument is not under review at this time. The work programme simply sets out the themes under which the agency will work. Failure to agree the work programme will deprive the Council of the opportunity to set the direction for the agency by defining these themes.
	I turn now to the third element in the Bill: the draft decision to maintain the number of EU commissioners at the equivalent of one per member state. The proposed reduction in the size of the Commission and the subsequent loss of a guaranteed commissioner emerged as a concern of the Irish during the ratification of the Lisbon treaty. In order to secure Ireland’s ratification of the treaty, it was agreed that a decision would be taken to maintain the number of EU commissioners before the appointment of the next Commission in 2014. The European Council has put forward the draft decision to fulfil the commitment made to Ireland.
	This Government are committed to creating a leaner, less bureaucratic European Union and to improving efficiency in the EU institutions, including the Commission. We believe there is significant room for savings in administration and will continue to push for substantial reductions in the EU’s administrative costs. However, it is also important that the UK maintains its EU commissioner. By agreeing to this draft decision, the UK will retain its guaranteed commissioner and be in a stronger position to influence the make-up of the next Commission. Furthermore, the draft decision states that it should be reviewed before a new Commission is appointed, in 2019, or when the number of EU member states reaches 30, whichever is earlier. The draft decision does not give the go-ahead for the Commission to continue expanding ad infinitum.
	I hope the House will agree with our assessment that these measures, although necessary, are administrative in nature, improving the accessibility and legal certainty
	of the EU’s official record, providing an EU agency with a work programme and fulfilling a commitment to the Irish people.

Bob Stewart: Does this mean that we will able to get an electronic version of what has happened in the European Union within, say, three hours, as we do for proceedings in this House, and that if one does not have that, it will take several days to get a printed version?

Damian Green: My understanding is that there will be no alteration to the accessibility of the printed version. The electronic version already exists; this Bill means that it can be taken as an authentic record of what has happened. The Bill simply changes the status of the electronic record, which—I am told—is published every day. I hope that will assuage my hon. Friend’s concerns, and I commend this Bill to the House.

Wayne David: In the order of things, many hon. Members might think that this Bill is not particularly contentious. I can understand that; however, the Bill is important, in terms of policy content and its constitutional significance to our relationship with the European Union.
	As we have heard, there are three elements to the Bill. The first gives legislative approval to the electronic version of the European Union’s Official Journal. A draft decision was arrived at by the Justice and Home Affairs Council last March. Parliament is now being asked to approve that decision. The second issue concerns another decision of the Justice and Home Affairs Council, about the European Union’s Fundamental Rights Agency. The European Union is required to make a decision to establish the thematic areas of the FRA’s work for the next five years. Political agreement was secured at the Council meeting in January last year. Now Parliament has to approve or reject that agreement.
	Thirdly, there is the draft European Council decision on the number of European commissioners. The Lisbon treaty states that there will be one commissioner per member state until 1 November 2014, when the number of commissioners would be reduced to a number corresponding to two thirds of the member states. However, a concession was made to assuage Irish sentiments during the Irish referendum on the Lisbon treaty. The concession was that each member state would continue to have one commissioner. To enable that commitment to come into effect, it is necessary to have the conclusion of the European Council agreed by this Parliament.
	The three draft decisions are the first such decisions to be brought before this House under the European Union Act 2011. I would like to make a few remarks about that legislation. We welcome the fact that the agreement of Parliament is being sought on these decisions. Although we had reservations during the passage of the 2011 Act about the possibility of referendums being held on a multiplicity of relatively small issues, we strongly supported referendums being held on issues of constitutional significance. We also strongly supported a bigger role for Parliament, both in scrutinising European legislation and actual decision making. That is why we did not oppose the European Union Bill or divide the House on it.
	In a constitutional sense, the decisions before us are important because two of the three were made at European level under article 352 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union—the so-called flexibility clause—which allows the EU to act on a subject for which there is no specific treaty base. The clause has understandably been a cause for concern among parliamentarians across the political spectrum, not only in this country. Indeed, I recall that, when I was a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, a great deal of time was spent deliberating on the issue, and a good report was produced on it.
	Given that the Government support the two decisions made under article 352, I am pleased that we are having a full discussion on the Floor of the House and that parliamentary approval is being sought for a parliamentary Bill. I am especially pleased that such approval is being sought on the decision to extend the work of the Fundamental Rights Agency over the next five years. I say that because, as the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) has pointed out, the former Lord Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), initially took the view that there was no need for an Act of Parliament as the European decisions satisfied the exemption requirements of the 2011 EU Act. I am pleased to note that the Government changed their mind on that after the European Scrutiny Committee and its indomitable Chairman, the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), pointed out the error of their ways.
	I shall comment briefly on each of the draft decisions covered by the Bill. The first decision relates to the Official Journal of the European Union. The EU has produced the OJ in printed form since 1958, and it has been available in its electronic format since 1998. The journal is made up of two series and one supplement. It contains information about the treaties and about the judgments of the European Court of Justice. Crucially, its “S series” supplement also provides invitations to tender for contracts and is therefore an important part of the mechanism that enables the single market to function and develop. As we all know, the single market is vital to the British economy.
	We also need to take into account a relatively recent court ruling to ensure that online electronic versions of the Official Journal of the European Union have parity with the paper versions. I refer Members to case C-161/06, which involved a company called Skoma-Lux in the Czech Republic. After being fined for infringing customs legislation, the company, which operated in the fine wine import sector, brought an action for the cancellation of the fine before the regional court in Ostrava. I am sure that Members will be fascinated to hear that the claimant was an importer of the red dessert wine, Kagor VK, into the Czech Republic. The wine was made from grape juice, with added sugar and corn spirit —[Interruption.] You have obviously not tried that delicacy yet, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am sure that there is time to do so.
	After the deliberations in the regional court, the matter was referred to the European Court of Justice, particularly in relation to the interpretation of article 58 of the 2003 Act of Accession, regarding whether that provision allowed the enforcement of a Community regulation that had not been published in the Official Journal of the European Unionin the language of a
	member state. The Court went on to state that publication on the internet did not equate to proper publication. That is why we need clarification of that point today. In case there is concern about digitalisation, I am assured that it will be covered under heading 5 of a multi-annual financial framework budget allocation and that, as the Minister said, there will be no extra cost.
	The second draft decision relates to the Fundamental Rights Agency. The previous multi-annual framework for the FRA expired at the end of last year. After consultation, the European Council proposed extending and developing the FRA’s work in a number of thematic areas. In May last year, the Justice and Home Affairs Council reached political agreement for there to be nine areas of work. These included access to justice, victims of crime and compensation for crime victims, children’s rights, racism, xenophobia and related intolerance. Opposition Members believe that the agency is extremely useful in assessing the impact of legislation not only in current EU member states, but in applicant countries. We therefore support the draft decision.
	The third decision relates to the number of EU commissioners. This is perhaps the most significant of the proposals in the Bill. As I indicated a few moments ago, this draft decision maintains the number of commissioners at one per member state. I of course welcome the fact that the people of Ireland voted yes in 2009, and I am pleased that they felt able to do so. This change will, it has to be said, ensure that all member states will feel that they are fully represented in all the EU’s principal institutions, which can only be a good thing.
	It would be wrong to give the impression, however, that there is no need to change the way in which the Commission functions. There is a need and a case for examining whether there should be a degree of seniority within the college of commissioners, and a case can be made for examining the allocation of portfolios within the Commission. As the shadow Foreign Secretary has argued, there needs to be a commissioner with the specific responsibility for stimulating growth and job creation.
	Finally, in recent debates on the European Union, Members have referred to the need for national Parliaments to have a stronger voice and a stronger involvement. Despite its shortcomings, the European Union Act 2011 does to some extent address this issue, but let us not forget that one of the most positive aspects of the Lisbon treaty, which Labour secured, was the introduction of a so-called yellow card procedure. This needs to be strengthened so that this Parliament, along with other national Parliaments, really does fulfil a central role in EU decision making. Subsidiarity means that decisions ought to be taken at the most appropriate level—as close to the people as possible. That is a sound democratic principle, and it ought to be the cornerstone of how we approach the European Union. To make that vision a reality, it will be necessary to ensure that national Parliaments—and this Parliament in particular—play a central role in determining what should be decided and at what level of government.
	This Bill, small though it is, has our support because it modestly points us in the right direction. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of other more important aspects of the Government’s policy towards the European Union.

Chris Heaton-Harris: It is a pleasure to speak on a matter European where there is general agreement across the House and no time limit on the scoreboard. I shall go on for only a couple of hours, and I have already issued my press release saying I was “speaking to a packed Chamber.” As long as the few Members here keep quiet about it, I shall be fine.
	I thought it might be wise to explain why it is important to discuss these matters. Because the European Union Act 2011 has brought today’s debate forward on the basis that Parliament is required to pass an Act to approve the relatively low-level EU decisions in clause 1, it might make it look as though those decisions are of no consequence and do not need to be talked about. As both the Minister and the shadow Minister said, however, these are quite important matters, and some other member states find them amazingly important.
	The German Federal Constitutional Court talked about article 352 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union—the flexibility clause that has caused so much excitement in the past—on which these proposed decisions are based. It considered that article as part of its 2009 judgment on the constitutionality of German basic law and the Lisbon treaty when Germany was seeking to ratify the treaty. Specifically, it considered the question of whether the article, which gives the European Union sweeping legislative power, was compatible with democracy as enshrined within German basic law.
	The court had already found that, to have democratic legitimacy, the powers of the EU must be rooted in a democratic decision of Germany’s national Parliament to confer those powers to the EU. The German court said:
	“Article 352 TFEU not only establishes a competence of action for the European Union but at the same time relaxes the principle of conferral.”
	That is the principle that powers must be conferred on the EU by member states under article 352. The court continued:
	“action by the European Union in fields set out in the Treaties is intended to be possible if the Treaties have not provided the specific competence necessary…The provision can thus serve to create a competence which makes action on the European level possible in almost the entire area of application of the primary law”
	across the EU treaties.
	The court ruled that
	“As regards the ban on transferring blanket empowerments or transferring Kompetenz”—
	the competence for the EU to decide its own powers—
	“the provision”—
	that is, article 352—
	“meets with constitutional objections because the newly worded provision makes it possible to substantially amend Treaty foundations of the European Union without the mandatory participation of legislative”—
	national—
	“bodies beyond the Member States’ executive powers”.
	Essentially, the court said that the German Parliament would have to examine these matters again.
	It is good that we are at least mimicking the German Parliament, albeit a few years later. We are here to discuss relatively important issues, as has the German
	Parliament. It could perhaps be argued that the German public may be a tiny tad less Eurosceptic, because their Parliament talks about these matters sensibly and regularly, and that they therefore may understand them slightly better.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I knew that I was going to provoke some reaction.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am very concerned that our speaking about these matters will make the country more pro-European. I want to encourage people in their Euroscepticism, so I think that we should perhaps talk about them less.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I think that all scepticism should be based on reality. We should talk about things with decent facts in front of us. This is a very good forum in which to discuss the facts, so let us do that.
	The Bill has been produced as a result of the requirement of the excellent European Union Act 2011 to approve the three EU decisions that have already been mentioned. Under the Act, before a United Kingdom Minister can give final agreement in the Council of the European Union or the European Council to decisions proposed on the basis of the EU treaties being used in these cases, the proposed decisions must be approved by an Act of Parliament. That is what we are doing today. Although certain proposals based on the EU flexibility clause are exempt from the requirement for an approving Act of Parliament, those exemptions do not apply in these cases. I will happily go into the details if Members want to know what they are. The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) is obviously keen to discuss them; perhaps we will do so afterwards, over a beer.
	Under the EU treaties, EU decisions of this kind require unanimity in the Council or the European Council, which means that without the UK’s support they cannot be adopted, at least to cover all member states.
	Members have already listed what the proposals would achieve. There is an EU regulation enabling the electronic rather than the printed version of the Official Journal to take EU legal effect. There is an EU decision that would set out the broad areas of work of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights between 2013 and 2017. There is also an EU decision on the number of European commissioners.
	Although the first two proposals may not seem to be hugely important, they are based on the flexibility clause, which gives the EU sweeping powers to adopt laws when the treaties have not otherwise given it the power to legislate. It has been used to adopt significant EU measures in the past, such as the creation of the EU bail-out fund for non-eurozone member states. It was therefore thought to warrant parliamentary control, and that thoroughly good idea was introduced by the European Union Act.
	The two proposals dealt with by clause 1 are being introduced under the flexibility clause: they are article 352 decisions—flexibility decisions. As I said, the flexibility clause has been used to co-ordinate national social security systems for the benefit of all member states’ nationals when moving within the EU; to provide for
	measures against the counterfeiting of euro coins that apply to member states outside the euro; and for the bail-out fund. We are talking about significant measures.
	The Bill deals with the EU Official Journal, which is not exactly the most exciting document in the world but, as the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) said, it contains striking elements of importance to the functioning of the single market, and to EU business and UK business in general. I have a small problem with it, because everything has to be translated into each of the official languages of the European Union. This is not a debate for now, but that approach means that everything that is said in the Official Journal has to be translated into, for example, Gaelic, and that is perhaps not the best use of money.

Kelvin Hopkins: I was recently at a European Union conference where the Irish did speak in Gaelic, and I applaud them for doing so. The great linguistic creations of humankind should be preserved, and I am glad that the Irish are speaking in their own language and insisting that it be translated.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I completely understand the cultural point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but the European Central Bank uses only a couple of languages and many international institutions manage to cut down the number of languages they use, and they do so purely to keep costs down. The European Commission, the European Parliament and other European institutions do not do that and perhaps they should examine their approach. I merely wanted to make that point in relation to how difficult it is to produce the Official Journal for the very next day in written and electronic form. The Government have given political—not legally binding—agreement to the proposed regulation, with the Council supposedly ready to adopt it and the European Parliament having given its consent.
	The Bill also deals with the proposed EU decision establishing a multi-annual work programme to cover 2013-17 for the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. Again, one can give a parting shot, at least, about the growth in the number of these EU agencies; there is a huge number now and, as with commissioners, one at least has to go to each member state. In 2007, the EU adopted a regulation, based on the flexibility clause, establishing the agency, which is based in Vienna. Its objective has been outlined by the hon. Gentleman, but according to article 2 of its founding regulations it is to provide “assistance and expertise” to support member states in fully respecting fundamental rights. Under article 4 of its founding regulations, the agency’s activities include: gathering, analysing and disseminating information; publishing reports; and developing “a communication strategy” and a
	“dialogue with civil society, in order to raise public awareness of fundamental rights”.
	In 2013, the agency will receive a subsidy of €21.3 million from the EU budget, about half of which will be spent on staffing. According to article 5 of the agency’s founding regulation, the Council needs to adopt five-year multi-annual frameworks that set out
	“thematic areas of the Agency’s activity, which must include the fight against racism, xenophobia and related intolerance”.
	In addition to the multi-annual framework, the agency can respond to requests from the Council, the European Parliament or European Commission for it to conduct studies or produce conclusions on particular topics.
	The draft Council decision before Parliament is the proposed multi-annual framework for the four years between 2013 and 2017, proposed by the European Commission on the basis of the flexibility clause. Under that decision, the thematic areas of the agency’s work in that time period will be: access to justice; victims of crime, including compensation for victims of crime; the information society, particularly respect for private life and the protection of personal data; Roma integration; judicial co-operation, except in criminal matters; the rights of the child; discrimination based on sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation; immigration and the integration of migrants, visa and border control and asylum; and racism, xenophobia and related intolerance. The Government have given political but not legally binding agreement to the proposed decision. The Council is apparently ready to adopt the proposal and the European Parliament has already given its consent.
	That leaves us with the final measure, which is probably more controversial than was originally said: the retention of one European commissioner per member state under clause 2. The European Commission consists of one national of each member state, so there are 27 commissioners and there will soon be 28 when Croatia comes in. Following great debate in the European Parliament and many other EU institutions and in the Parliaments of many member states, the treaty of Lisbon introduced the ratio of two thirds commissioners to member states. The logic was quite sensible: it was an attempt to stop bureaucracy growing out of control and to maintain some easier management of the bureaucracy from the top. The member states whose nationals would be commissioners would be decided
	“on the basis of a system of strictly equal rotation between the Member States, reflecting the demographic and geographical range of all the Member States”.
	The system would be agreed by unanimous decision at the European Council and each commissioner’s term would be five years.
	Article 17(5) of the treaty on European Union states that the European Council, acting unanimously, can vary the size of the Commission from November 2014. As the Government’s explanatory notes to the Bill state in paragraph 12,
	“when the Irish people voted ‘no’ in a referendum on Lisbon Treaty ratification in June 2008 the loss of a guaranteed”
	Irish commissioner in every Commission
	“emerged as a key concern. Without Irish ratification the Treaty could not enter into force, and as a result EU Heads of State and Government offered concessions to Ireland”.
	One of the main concessions, offered in December 2008 and reiterated in June 2009, provided that when
	“the Lisbon Treaty entered into force, a decision would be taken…to the effect that the Commission shall continue to include one national of each Member State”.
	Those concessions seemed enough for the Irish people, who voted in the second referendum in October 2009 and approved that treaty.
	The draft European Council decision based on article 17(5) has now been introduced and provides that from November 2014 onwards the number of commissioners will continue to equal the number of member states. The draft decision states that it will be reviewed in advance of the appointment of the Commission due to take office in 2019, but for the decision to be altered there will need to be unanimity in the European Council, meaning that any member state can veto such a change. Having a European commissioner is a big deal for many, if not all, of the countries of the European Union, so it is highly unlikely that the change will ever be made. We will therefore continue to build on the number of European Commissioners.

Bob Stewart: Does that mean that every European Commissioner will need a department to be built to support them or will there be commissioners without portfolio?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I shall address that point in a moment, but yes, no commissioner is merely in charge of paper clips. Every commissioner needs a cabinet—a group of people around them from the top of the civil service—and normally brings an extra language with them, so a huge amount of cost and bureaucracy is associated with it.
	The Government have given political but not legally binding agreement to the proposed decision, which is scheduled to be formally adopted by the European Council some time this year. Agreeing with the decision sits slightly oddly with something that the Prime Minister said in his speech on EU policy last week under the theme of competitiveness:
	“Can we justify a Commission that gets ever larger?”
	That is a fair question, considering that many other European bodies—the European Court of Auditors, for example—have an appointee from each member state, and work by having so many cooks making this particular broth. Appointments to EU agencies, as I have said, seem to be farmed out nearly one per member state, and it has almost got to the point where we need to have a serious discussion about how, if the European Commission is to work effectively, that can be done.
	It is a particularly thorny issue, and warrants much more discussion. It is amazingly political. As I have said, it was one of the more important assurances gained by the Irish to secure a yes vote in their referendum. Everyone in Parliament will remember that the UK, along with four other large countries, had two commissioners, but we gave up our second commissioner with the enlargement of the EU in 2004. It is de rigueur in the EU for each country that comes into the club to get a commissioner—a seat at the main decision-making table in Europe. While that is a fine principle, it brings with it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) suggested, some powers to guide and oversee, but also a mass of bureaucracy. I believe that that is one reason why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised that question in his excellent speech at Bloomberg the other week.
	One does not have to be pro-European or Eurosceptic to see that the European Commission has become unwieldy in size, and while this might not be the time to sort out
	the issue for good, it would be a good opportunity to raise this thorny issue for discussion with our European counterparts. With many new accessions down the line, it seems that this is an opportunity missed. Certainly, it would be an interesting discussion to have at roughly the same time that the multi-annual financial framework is decided. I wonder, if we had a reasonable debate on the subject, whether proposals at least to trim the Commission’s total budget for the next seven years could be achieved, even if it is not possible to trim or cap the number of commissioners.
	I conclude where I began. It is really good to see some proper scrutiny as a result of the European Union Act 2011. I thank the Government for introducing that excellent piece of legislation and for sticking to both the letter and the spirit of it.

Kelvin Hopkins: First, I apologise for not being here for the Front-Bench speeches. I was detained elsewhere, and I assure fellow Members that I shall not speak for long.
	However, I have been provoked into speaking by the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), with whom I frequently agree on European matters, but on this one I disagree. It is very important indeed to retain one member of the Commission for every member state, and I see a parallel in the American Senate, where states, however large or small, have two senators. If New York, California and Texas began to get together to say, “Well, Delaware and Rhode Island will no longer have senators,” there would be all sorts of problems. I am sure that there are other ways of overcoming the problems of inefficiency—perhaps with departmental arrangements for more than one commissioner in Departments that are particularly big, as we do in our own Government: we have more than one Minister per Department.
	Proportionality exists with qualified majority voting, and on many voting issues, different countries have different weights. It is important that, at the highest level, every individual country has their say, just as in the American constitution, every state, however small, has a say at the top table. It is important, too, to have the occasional bit of grit in the oyster. Small states, as well as large states, can occasionally become disagreeable, and I think that being disagreeable is part of the essence of democracy. Having a machine dominated by bureaucracy and officials who just go along with it is not healthy for democracy. I have many criticisms of the European Union, and I have been very critical of the secrecy with which the Commission operates. I hope we will always preserve a single member per state as the method of composition of the Commission, even if we make some different arrangements for how it works.
	Another factor in all this is who the commissioners are. I like to think that from time to time we as the British people might appoint a commissioner whose first loyalty is to the interests of British people, and who reflects their views as well as their interests. Their views may sometimes be awkward and may certainly be grit in the European oyster. That would be right.
	Once the commissioners are appointed, which portfolio is allocated to which member state? I have been told by certain MEPs that from time to time conclaves of Commission officials get together to allocate dodgy
	portfolios, in particular the portfolio of Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, to weaker members. I know that there is always the worry that a commissioner might turn out to be a bit of a trade unionist, a bit of a leftist. That would be very dangerous. We must have someone who knows that the market and employers come first. Above all, we must make sure that profits come first, not the interests of working people.
	Who is appointed as a commissioner for each member state and which portfolio they are given are very important matters. I hope we will see to it that at least Britain has commissioners for the foreseeable future—for as long as we are in the European Union—who truly represent the views of the British people, and not just the interests of the British people as they see them. I hope also that we get appropriate portfolios, and that the small countries that might be squeezed out also have their say.

Martin Horwood: It is great to see the European Union Act 2011 in action. It has certainly drawn in the crowds today, in just the way that we might have warned that it might not do when we discussed the Bill. During its passage through Parliament, we warned that the Bill might represent a slightly disproportionate response to concerns about scrutiny and democracy in relation to European affairs.
	The fact that we have ended up spending parliamentary time on the Floor of the House discussing the publication in electronic format of the European Parliament record suggests that we might have had a point. I remember Ministers optimistically assuming that a debate such as this might assuage the Eurosceptic concerns about democracy and scrutiny in relation to Europe. I thought at the time that that might be optimistic.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend heard all of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), which explained that the Germans have an exactly similar procedure in regard to article 352 on the treaty of the functioning of the European Union to ensure that those measures are legislated upon by their Parliament. Surely if it is good enough for the German people to have proper ratification procedures, it should be good enough for us.

Martin Horwood: Only yesterday the hon. Gentleman was declaring on Radio 4 that he was taking his lead from the Catholic hierarchy. Now he tells the House that he is taking a lead from the German Parliament. At this rate he might get a reputation for being a Europhile, which might not do his reputation within the Conservative party too much good.

Wayne David: Does the hon. Gentleman think the generous allocation of time by the Government has anything to do with the lack of any other Government business?

Martin Horwood: It is above my pay grade to judge, but I am sure that is not true.
	The substance of the Bill relates to three measures, two of which are completely uncontentious—the e-publication of the Journal and the business plan, effectively, of the Fundamental Rights Agency. Other hon. Members are right that the third measure is worth
	more substantial debate, as it adjusts a mechanism that was supposed to limit the size and endless growth of the Commission. There are a number of issues that that growth has raised. It was not simply the practicality of having an ever-increasing number of commissioners. Without being unkind to some of the smaller member states, we know that there is a bit of a capacity issue in terms of their ability to produce candidates of sufficient calibre for a portfolio that affects the entire continent. Moreover, in terms of public perception, it slightly muddies the whole idea of the Commission. The Commission should be, in essence, the equivalent of our civil service. It should be the servant of the Council of Ministers, the various European ministerial councils and the European Parliament, and not pretend to be a representative body.

Kelvin Hopkins: I agree with that sentiment, but the reality is that the Commission and its officials act like a Government rather than a civil service. Only this week, I was told by someone who knows about these matters that when Commission officials decide on something it generally happens.

Martin Horwood: I do not often agree with the hon. Gentleman on matters European, but I do agree that there is a slight risk of that happening, as we have all been aware over many decades. We have to be careful about the level of democratic accountability in the European Union. I would always support increasing democratic reform and democratic accountability in the EU where we can do so.
	There is the potential for endless growth in the number of commissioners, or at least for the number to be limited only by the number of European states that might join the EU. It was clear from the Irish referendum debate that, as any fan of the TV series “Borgen” will know, for smaller countries the appointment of a European commissioner is a major political issue to which people attach a great deal of importance, and we have to respect that. We are a community of many nations with many different priorities, and it is important that we acknowledge that. To that extent, I support the Government in backing this measure.
	The hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) made a brave effort to make this debate sound like a very contentious one that demands this level of scrutiny. In the spirit of coalition unity, I recognise that the European Union Act 2011 has brought a greater level of accountability and scrutiny to European legislation in this place, and that process could go further. At the beginning of last year, Ministers announced that there would be a review of the way in which scrutiny of European legislation took place. Submissions were invited, and I found myself in rare agreement with the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) in suggesting that Select Committees should automatically and routinely vet European legislation that was relevant to their briefs. Will Ministers update us on the progress of that process and say how far down the path we are towards introducing such routine and automatic scrutiny by Select Committees?

Damian Green: In the interests of the many parliamentarians I see assembled on these Benches, I should point out that the procedures of Select Committees are very much not for the Government to decide but are a matter for this House.

Martin Horwood: The recommendations of the Government on scrutiny was the issue in contention, and many of us made submissions on that basis. In the end, Select Committees might be a better option for scrutinising such legislation, or there could be a greater use of statutory instrument Committees or European Committees.
	I absolutely stand by the European Union Act, which was an important agreement between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat wings of the coalition that, for a while, reassured many Eurosceptics on the Conservative Back Benches that we were going to give greater scrutiny to Europe. However, I suggest that we might in time reflect on whether it is a good use of parliamentary time to spend time in the main Chamber dealing with issues that are relatively uncontentious and, in many cases, relatively unimportant in the great scheme of things. With that major caveat, I am happy to give my support to the Bill.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: It is a pleasure, as always, to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), with whom I disagree on almost every matter regarding Europe, this being no exception. I think it is fantastic that we are spending parliamentary time scrutinising what is being done in the European Union. So many laws come to our nation from the European Union practically rubber-stamped as an appendix to a report put out by the European Scrutiny Committee that is not even debated in a Committee upstairs. The percentage that we send through for debate in Committee is small, and that which comes to the Floor of the House smaller still.
	Article 352 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union allows the European Union very widespread powers to extend its abilities to legislate across its areas of competence, and it is important for us to scrutinise and control that.

Martin Horwood: How many of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents or lobbying organisations have contacted him with their concerns about the electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am bombarded with messages from across the country, and probably internationally, from people who want to know that the laws that affect them are made clearly so that they know what they are and are not caught out by trickery and underhand practices. That is a fundamental principle of why they send me here. I would argue that everybody who voted at the last election wants to sleep securely in their beds knowing that the law is fairly and properly made.

Kelvin Hopkins: I often agree with the hon. Gentleman, but on this point I agree very strongly. I am perhaps alone in insisting on having hard copy in my Select Committee meetings rather than an iPad. I can operate an iPad but I want hard copy, and I still have it. Much as we know that we are in an electronic age, paper still has its place.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Gentleman, as so often, is wise and right in this instance.

Bob Stewart: It might not be of much importance that the electronic publication of the Official Journal goes ahead, but I put it to my hon. Friend that it is pretty important how many commissioners are appointed, because that has a direct spin-off in cost terms.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: There are two parts to my hon. Friend’s point. On the first part, I disagree with him. The form in which instructions are sent out is important, and it is right that people should know about it. It is a long-standing principle of our law that ignorance of the law is no excuse. If that is fair, it is also fair that knowledge of the law should be made available to people in a timely and efficient way, because it is something that might affect their lives, and that when a change to the method of notification takes place, that should be debated in this Chamber and passed into law. On the second part, I completely agree that the number of commissioners is significant.
	The second point that I raised with my right hon. Friend the Minister is crucially important. It relates to the change from article 308 of the previous treaty to article 352 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. Article 352 is broader in scope. Had it been assumed that anything previously incorporated under article 308 could be transmuted under article 352, that could have allowed all sorts of laws—my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) went through a number of them—to pass into the body of European Union powers without any further scrutiny by this House. As is often the case, something that is in itself minor has set an important precedent in protecting the rights of this House to scrutinise these matters and to ensure that the interests of our constituents are protected.
	I wish briefly to discuss the number of commissioners. I do not have the confidence that some hon. Members have in our commissioners, and I do not feel happy that we have one representing us. Commissioners take an oath that they will act in the best interests of the European Union. Some have argued that that is directly contrary to the oath that they have taken as Privy Counsellors, and we should be concerned about that. They are there, by design, to represent the interests of Europe, not of the United Kingdom. Perhaps because of our history and our civic traditions, our commissioners tend to take that very seriously, whereas commissioners from some other countries may simply represent the nation state that has sent them. I do not have great confidence that the person representing the United Kingdom is waving the Union Jack; they could just as well be waving that awful European Union flag.

Kelvin Hopkins: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way yet again. I am one of those who have been concerned for many years about our commissioners, not just because they do not represent my view, but because I do not think they represent the collective view of our people, if there is such a thing. One possibility might be for them to be elected. We have started to elect police commissioners, but European commissioners are much more important.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: That is a brilliant idea. If they were elected, there would be less chance of them going native, because they might be able to stand for election
	again. At present, there is a fear that, when people go off to Europe, the moment they arrive they send out for Belgian dress so that they can appear to fit in with the ethos of the European Union.
	I want to address the question of Ireland and the specifics of what it was given to persuade it—bully it, perhaps—to ratify the Lisbon treaty. That shows—I think that this strengthens the Prime Minister’s renegotiation position—that countries can renegotiate with the EU for things that they feel they need when discussions are being held in the European Councils. That is an important point. We have often heard people say, “The Prime Minister can go off to Europe, but they will not give him anything. It’s too bad: you’ve just got to like it or lump it.” Actually, the European Union, for all its many faults, is a fundamentally pragmatic body in how it gets agreement among member states. It does a lot of horse trading, one way or another, to get agreements. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) wants to intervene, but she seems to be nodding vaguely in response to that particular point.
	The situation means that, if we go to the EU and say, “If you want X, you must give us Y,” or, “If you want X, you must give us A to Z in return,” that is a strong position for us to be in when the requirement is for unanimity. What Ireland has done, and what we are bringing into law, is very important and very encouraging for the United Kingdom and for the position of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his negotiations.
	Finally, I praise the Government for the Bill, which has been proposed as a consequence of the 2011 Act. When the Act was going through Parliament, it was not universally welcomed, certainly not by those on the Opposition Benches, but even Eurosceptics on my side were sceptical about the effect that it would have. I was extremely pleased to hear the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) welcome the Bill and I am pleased that the Government have changed their view so that the multi-annual financial framework has to go through British law. That shows that the 2011 Act is working and acting as a proper check on what goes on in the European Union.
	Without the Act, none of the three things under discussion today would have required legislation, but, because of it, they all do. As a result, crucial issues, such as the future number of European commissioners and renegotiations such as that which took place with Ireland to get it to support the Lisbon treaty, have come before this Chamber. Although in this instance the Bill has turned out to be uncontroversial, it could have been very controversial. I think that we are now secure, thanks to the Government, in having a better check on the accretion of powers to Europe. I might like to reverse them, but at least we are now checking them.

William Cash: I first want to refer, in the context of the Bill, to the referendum announced by the Prime Minister. We have heard much about the 2011 Act. I opposed it during many of its stages, because I believed that although it had a so-called referendum lock, in practice it would not deal with the kinds of things we are now besieged with, particularly those measures that are being introduced into the political
	core of Europe—the eurozone—that affect the United Kingdom but that, because they do not refer to the United Kingdom, do not require a referendum, however significant their impact on the United Kingdom. In fact, the European Scrutiny Committee, which I have the honour to chair, produced a report on that very question and we remain extremely concerned about the effect of allowing legislation to go through without a referendum on the specious grounds that a transfer of powers is not taking place. This is not just about a transfer of powers; a referendum is required when there is a fundamental change.
	Interestingly, the referendum announced by the Prime Minister, which I think should take place during this Parliament, is a very good example—indeed, it is a perfect example—of something that does not fall under the 2011 Act. However, it is the opinion of the Prime Minister—it is certainly my opinion and that of many hon. Members present—that the proposals that are about to be announced, or that he thinks are likely to be announced, as well as what has already been transferred, the structure of the treaties and the impact of the provisions, past and present, on the United Kingdom, should be subject to a referendum, because of the unfortunate, aggregate effect that they continue to have on the United Kingdom.

Emma Reynolds: The hon. Gentleman is extremely kind, as ever, in giving way. Would he like a referendum on the Bill under discussion?

William Cash: I did not say that. What I said was that the referendum that the Prime Minister has announced goes outside the provisions of the 2011 Act, and I am glad to say that that demonstrates that, where there is fundamental change, he recognises—with some help from his friends— that a referendum is a requirement, even though it is not taking place as early as some of us would like.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank my right hon. Friend—

William Cash: Not yet.

Chris Heaton-Harris: He is not yet a right hon. Gentleman, but he might be soon. I thank him for giving way. Does he recognise that, while the 2011 Act was designed to stop powers being sucked away from the UK at the request of the European Union but without much say from this place, the Prime Minister’s referendum is about a new settlement that may require powers to be returned from the EU, so they are slightly different things?

William Cash: That is true, but I maintain that the key question is whether the requirements contained in the five principles, which include repatriation and the primacy of national Parliaments—on which the European Scrutiny Committee has insisted on a three-hour debate on the Floor of the House because of the implications for economic governance—are all part and parcel of what has been going wrong in the European Union. I welcome the idea of the referendum, but with the caveat that I do not think the timing is right, although that is a separate question.
	Turning to article 352 of the treaty for the functioning of the European Union, my hon. Friend made an excellent speech, as did my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins). They are all on the European Scrutiny Committee and very familiar with the intricacies of the arguments, although they are not that intricate. In fact, the provisions of article 352 derive, in effect, from article 308. I have now served on the ESC for 27 years, and those who have been around for as long as I have—

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Not long enough.

William Cash: Not long enough, says my hon. Friend. The fact is that article 308 is and always has been a very contentious issue. It is reflected in provisions in our own domestic law that deal with whether or not, when something is enacted, anything that flows from it can be done without the need for further primary legislation. It so happens that article 352 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union has similar words:
	“If action by the Union should prove necessary, within the framework of the policies defined in the Treaties, to attain one of the objectives set out in the Treaties, and the Treaties have not provided the necessary powers, the Council, acting unanimously…after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, shall adopt the appropriate measures.”
	That means that there is already a big amber light in relation to the acquisition of these further powers, although there is no legal base for them.
	That is, in a nutshell, the reason for the Bill. Sections 7 and 8 of the 2011 Act do not apply to the two draft decisions that were made under article 352. An Act of Parliament is therefore required. That is a safeguard. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset is right that it is important that we have an Act of Parliament, despite what the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) said, not because of the nature of the provision in question, but because the 2011 Act, which the hon. Member for Cheltenham was so keen to endorse, did not provide for circumstances of this kind.

Martin Horwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

William Cash: I will certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I always like to hear a contrary view.

Martin Horwood: I am tempted to ask the hon. Gentleman to comment on the extraordinary assertion of the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) that we do not discuss these matters in enough detail in this place. However, what I want to say to him is that I think he may have misquoted me. I did not say that we should not have legislation on these matters. I supported the European Union Act 2011 in that regard. I just suggested that we do not need primary legislation in every case.

William Cash: I do not want to be drawn too far down that route, but the simple reason for primary legislation is that, without it, there would not be adequate legislative authority, even for the questions that arise under this Bill.
	I shall now turn to one or two issues relating to the Bill that required a considerable amount of consideration by the European Scrutiny Committee. I will give a tiny bit of history on the multi-annual framework for the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, but I will try to be as brief as possible. The Justice Minister, Lord McNally, stated in an explanatory memorandum that was issued to the House and the European Scrutiny Committee in January 2012 that he thought that the proposal was justified. He said that the Government would have opposed the proposal to extend the multi-annual framework, but wanted to consider whether the technical issues that they disliked had been addressed.
	The European Scrutiny Committee reported on the proposal on 1 February 2012. We asked the Government whether they accepted the view of the European Commission that
	“with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the Agency’s remit automatically extends, in principle, to all areas of EU competence under the TFEU, and that the Agency may therefore undertake activities within the field of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters without any further amendment to its founding Regulation”.
	We questioned the Government’s view that this decision satisfied the exemption requirements under section 8(6)(a) of the 2011 Act and would not require an Act of Parliament. Our 10th report, which was published on 17 July 2012, set out our concerns in greater detail. The draft decision remained under scrutiny.
	The former Lord Chancellor, who is now the Minister without Portfolio, told the European Scrutiny Committee in July 2012 that a political agreement had been reached on the draft decision which excluded any new activity covering EU policing and criminal law measures. In a letter that he sent on 22 November, he told the European Scrutiny Committee that, having heard what we had said, the Government were now—although they had not been before—of the opinion that the exemption did not apply in this case, and that primary legislation would be introduced.
	That is why we have this Bill—the European Scrutiny Committee did its job and asked for further clarification. [Interruption.] I am extremely grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds), for nodding his head, because sometimes people wonder what all the detail is about and whether we have to be so intricate. The bottom line is that the European Scrutiny Committee, by pointing out the legal objections and having a dialogue with the Government, who in turn had a dialogue with the European Commission, helped to make the legislation better. We helped to guarantee that there would be primary legislation and that, in the absence of the authorisation through the 2011 Act that had been deemed to be appropriate, this House would have the opportunity to consider the matter in the way we are considering it today. Indeed, after this debate, there will be a Committee stage and a Report stage.
	The European Scrutiny Committee reported on the proposal again on 28 November. We cleared the document, but in January 2013 we pointed out to Ministers that the Government’s uncertainty about whether the exemptions applied to this decision had prevented the new measure from being agreed in good time. That is the history of this matter and it is important to put it on the record.
	The draft decision on the number of European Commissioners provides another example of the European Scrutiny Committee takings its findings to the Government and, thereby, to the Commission. We received an explanatory memorandum and a letter from the Minister for Europe on 27 September. He stated that the size and composition of the European Commission was a fraught subject. He went on to say that it was difficult to identify a solution that was equitable, legitimate in terms of the relative size and weight of different European countries, and efficient. That is all in our report.
	The European Scrutiny Committee considered the draft decision in its 13th report, which was published on 2 November 2012. We noted that because of delays in the draft decision being communicated to member states and because Parliament was in recess, it was not possible for us to scrutinise the proposal before political agreement needed to be reached on the draft decision at the General Affairs Council on 16 October 2012.
	I put that on the record because it is important that these matters have a proper legal base and that Parliament has an opportunity to debate them. We are having this debate on the Floor of the House, so it is open to any Member of Parliament to discuss these proposals, to oppose them, to examine them in Committee and to table amendments.

Bob Stewart: Will my hon. Friend give way?

William Cash: I will give way in just a moment, if I may.
	The problem is that when we provide for amendments to be made to matters that have been through the Council of Ministers, we are obliged under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 to continue to pass that legislation through our Parliament. That poses the very questions regarding the role of national Parliaments that the Prime Minister raised in his recent speech. The European Scrutiny Committee is currently conducting an inquiry into scrutiny and that is among the matters that we are considering.
	If the House of Commons—or indeed the House of Lords, although I will stick to the House of Commons for my purposes—were to take exception to a provision that was included in an Act of Parliament for lack of a legal base or for some other substantive reason and wanted to vote against it, that would raise the very question that was embedded in the White Paper of 1971, which led to the passing of the 1972 Act. Under section 2 of that Act, we must implement all decisions that have been decided in the Council of Ministers, irrespective of any other factors. Under section 3, we must agree to all decisions of the European Court.
	In the context of the Prime Minister’s speech— I welcome his comments on the referendum, although I think it will come too late—we have to evaluate where the power lies in passing legislation. We need an Act of Parliament for the provisions contained in the Bill for the reasons that have already been given, which I endorse. However, could Parliament veto the provisions that it covers if we did not want them to go through? We should be allowed to do so, and that will be part of the inquiry that the European Scrutiny Committee is now conducting. It is difficult to justify to the British people the fact that if they vote in a general election to have certain legislation implemented, they can then find that it is all decided in the Council of Ministers, where
	91.7% of votes go in favour of European proposals. That brings up the whole business of how UKRep advises, or even decides, on such legislation, which is a vital question that affects the daily lives of this country’s voters.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I congratulate my hon. Friend’s Committee on bringing this matter before the House. Clause 2 of the Bill contains an important provision. How can it be right that a small country such as Luxembourg has equal representation on the Commission with a complex country such as ourselves? That surely makes no sense whatever. Furthermore, the clause seems to indicate that however many countries join the EU, they will each get a commissioner, so we could end up with 30 or more commissioners. How can that make sense?

William Cash: It is difficult to make sense of a lot of things that come out of the European Union, and I am reminded of what Alice said in “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland” about believing half a dozen impossible things before breakfast every day. That is possibly one example.
	The reality is that there are 27 member states, and there was a lot of discussion about whether there should be an equivalent number of commissioners. It was decided that each member state would continue to have a commissioner. I understand well what my hon. Friend says, and it is quite difficult to justify given countries’ comparative size, geography, GDP and so on. On the other hand, if some countries were to be denied a European commissioner, I suppose some people would say that they were being treated unfairly. Finally on the number of commissioners, I have argued in the past that the European Commission should be relegated to the role of a secretariat rather than the role that it currently enjoys.

Bob Stewart: My hon. Friend has eloquently, and at some length, posed and answered the question that I was going to put to him earlier. I was going to say that whatever we do here, it will have no impact on the number of commissioners.

William Cash: That is correct, given that the veto that was promised to us has been taken away.
	Right at the beginning, when the European Communities Act 1972 went through, the functions of the European Union were fairly restricted. Up to the Single European Act in 1986, which I voted for, there were a limited number of qualified majority voting arrangements. That Act greatly expanded them, and I tabled an amendment at the time suggesting, “Nothing in this Act shall derogate from the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament”. I was then advised by the Clerks—indeed, I went to the Speaker about it—that it was not possible to move such an amendment, because it would challenge the fabric of the 1972 Act. Time has moved on, and qualified majority voting is now used in a lot more cases.
	There was a qualification in the 1971 White Paper, which led to the passing of the 1972 Act by a mere six votes. It stated that there would be no essential erosion of British sovereignty, and that we would have to retain the veto in our vital national interest, because doing otherwise would undermine and endanger the very fabric
	of the European Community itself. I repeated that point the other day and will do so again and again, for one reason—the mass of legislation that there has been since the referendum in 1975, including all the treaties, with some 35 million people in this country never having had an opportunity to express their view on that legislation. As I said in
	The Times
	the other day, treaty after treaty has gone through on a three-line Whip, without a referendum. There has been a vast accumulation of qualified majority voting, and all that legislation has been passed.
	The Bill contains just one provision. Matters that would normally require a Bill have gone through both Houses of Parliament without one, but this one, which is based on a few lines in a directive or regulation, is in a Bill. There is a complete mismatch in proportionality in how we legislate.
	There may well be no Division this evening, but that does not alter the fact that we have done our job, both in the European Scrutiny Committee and in the House, by examining a matter that would otherwise not have had a legal base under article 352. It is dangerous to legislate without having the power to do so. The rule of law is essential to the running of a stable Government and a stable European Union—if there is to be a European Union, it had better be stable and in accordance with the rule of law. Increasingly, the EU is demonstrating its lack of regard for the rule of law on matters such as the stability and growth pact. We also see it in the unlawful manner in which 25 member states went ahead after the Prime Minister had exercised the veto. There are many other examples. When a body that vaunts the rule of law as much as the EU is blatantly in breach of its own rules, there is trouble ahead.

Christopher Chope: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who does such sterling service to the House in his capacity as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee. I think I am the first person to speak in this debate, apart from the Front Benchers, who is not a member of that Committee, and I pay tribute to its members, who have ensured that we have the opportunity to hold the Government and the European Union to account in tonight’s debate and on subsequent occasions.
	I shall confine my remarks to the aspect of the Bill dealing with the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. You will remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, that when the Lisbon treaty was being discussed, our Government said that they were against the Fundamental Rights Agency because they thought it completely superfluous and unnecessary. They said that all it would do would be to duplicate the work of the Council of Europe. That is exactly what it has set out to do—to usurp the Council of Europe and duplicate its work.
	I am disappointed, given that the Government are newly playing hardball in Europe, that we are not taking on the agency and saying, “Hold on a minute, why are you expanding your ambit of activity? Why have you got a substantially increased budget?” My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) referred in his excellent contribution to the
	agency’s budget having risen to €21.3 million a year. Only a few years ago, it was hardly €100—it was a small, miniscule budget. A lot of that budget is being wasted, and I will give the House an example.
	About 18 months ago when I chaired the committee on migration, refugees and displaced persons at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, I was lucky enough to be invited by the Fundamental Rights Agency to address a conference in the centre of Warsaw. To my incredulity, I found that a whole 40-storey hotel in the centre of Warsaw was taken up with guests of the Fundamental Rights Agency who, on inquiry, had all had their expenses paid by that agency and had come from all over Europe, and beyond, to discuss issues relating to fundamental rights. That seemed an unnecessarily extravagant way of getting information—the Fundamental Rights Agency is to provide expert advice and support to European Union institutions and member states, not to give jollies to people from non-governmental organisations who want an outing to Warsaw at the expense of the European taxpayer.
	When I read the brilliant research paper from the House of Commons Library and saw some of the background on how the Commission reached its conclusion, I was a little dubious. It states that on 13 December,
	“the Commission proposed a new Multiannual Framework…and consulted the Management Board of the Fundamental Rights Agency”.
	In other words, it consulted the producer interests and received a preliminary contribution. The paper went on:
	“The Management Board consulted the Agency’s Fundamental Rights Platform (a network of cooperation with civil society)”.
	I suspect that most of those in the hotel I described were members of the agency’s fundamental rights platform. Unsurprisingly—such people are used to receiving that sort of indulgence at the expense of the European taxpayer—they were in favour of expanding the ambit of the Fundamental Rights Agency, as set out in the revised multi-annual framework. What an extraordinary state of affairs. I am surprised that the Government have not played a harder ball on the issue, although I am sure we will have the chance to focus on it by tabling an amendment to delete that provision when we discuss the Bill in Committee or on Report.
	Whencommenting on the results of the consultation to which I have referred, the European Parliament stated:
	“One hundred and eight organisations took part in the consultation process. Most organisations support the Agency’s work in the current areas, and would like it to continue…particularly in the areas of…asylum and migration.”
	There was a lot of support for extending the work of the Fundamental Rights Agency, and I am not surprised.
	If we must have such an agency, it would be better if it stopped duplicating the work of the Council of Europe. All members of the European Union are also members of the Council of Europe, but the Council of Europe’s budget is not going up because its European Union members say that we cannot afford to spend more money on it. The costs of the European Court of Human Rights continue to increase, but the Council of Europe’s budget is being squeezed in all other areas, including research. Meanwhile, such research is increasingly being done by the Fundamental Rights Agency with money that should rightfully be contributed to the Council of Europe.
	In a sense, I am disappointed that the Government seem to go along with the expansion of the Fundamental Rights Agency. How does that fit with the policy of this Government and this Parliament of trying to reduce the size of the European Union budget? The challenge given to those of us who want a real-terms reduction in that budget is always: “What are you going to cut?” Well, expenditure on the Fundamental Rights Agency is one thing we could cut, and we could do it by cutting that agency’s wings in the multi-annual framework that started this January and continues for the next five years. If we had not agreed to the expansion of that framework and had instead insisted on it being reduced in scope, we would have secured real savings and contributed to the genuine reduction in the European Union budget that everybody—certainly on the Government Benches—wishes to see.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I praise my hon. Friend for his work in establishing the budget of this new organisation. Since the Council of Europe gives the European taxpayer such good value for money in having its budget reduced each year, instead of having a new agency, why not give all its functions to the Council of Europe? In that way, we could reduce the European budget.

Christopher Chope: I think that is a brilliant idea, and for a long time I thought that was the policy supported by the Government. It is certainly supported by almost every member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, including many from core European Union states who regard themselves as being Europhiles in the extreme, but even they ask what the point is of duplicating the functions of the Council of Europe with those of the Fundamental Rights Agency. I hope my hon. Friend will take that idea forward.
	If we are to have a Fundamental Rights Agency with a multi-annual framework, as stated in the Bill, why not concentrate on one or two areas with an obvious need for further work? At the moment, the management board mentions “thematic areas”, which include:
	“Immigration and integration of migrants; visa and border control; asylum”,
	and the European Union is fundamentally failing in that area at the moment.
	The week before last I was in Greece where I visited the Greece-Turkey border and received briefings from Greek Ministers and the Hellenic coastguard about the problem of illegal migrants coming into Greece, mainly from Turkey. One problem in Greece that contributes to the
	“racism, xenophobia and related intolerance”—
	that is thematic area (j)—is that it is virtually impossible for Greece to return illegal migrants to the countries from which they came.
	Let me give the House an example. When visiting a detention centre in Athens, I went up to the wire fence and asked whether anybody spoke English. To cut a long story short, I started a conversation with a person who said that he had arrived in the detention centre having set out from Afghanistan—he is an Afghan national—and that he had paid smugglers $8,000 to get across Iran and Turkey. He wanted to go from Turkey across the Aegean sea and on to the Italian eastern seaboard so that he could make his way to the United Kingdom. I inquired about that and asked why he wanted
	to go to London. He replied that it was because he had been there for five years until a few months ago, and that he had lots of friends in London who had paid the $8,000 for his return trip. He had been deported from the United Kingdom after playing our system for about five years, and within a few weeks of getting back to Afghanistan this wholly undeserving case was presenting himself in a Greek detention centre.
	Unfortunately for that man, the boat from Turkey foundered—I suppose it is fortunate that the Greek coastguard rescued him and he was not drowned—and he found himself in the detention centre, but the Greek authorities had no way of returning him back to Afghanistan, because Afghanistan does not accept anyone in Greece who emanated from Afghanistan. If he is detained in Greece for the maximum of 18 months, he will be released and will join all those other people in Greece—this also happens in Italy—who do not belong or do not necessarily wish to stay there, which contributes to feelings of racism and xenophobia on the part of the indigenous population. Something like 60% of people in Greek prisons are non-Greek nationals.
	If there is a need for the Fundamental Rights Agency, it should deal with that sort of thing rather than mess around with the other expanded areas to which hon. Members have referred. For example, if the FRA looked at the inability of people to claim asylum in Turkey because it has opted out of many Geneva convention provisions, it might help to focus attention on the need to strengthen the Turkey-EU border.

William Cash: Is my hon. Friend conscious of the fact that, in the explanatory memorandum of 10 January 2012, Lord McNally, the Justice Minister, gave an example of a useful tool in measuring the impact of European legislation on fundamental rights in Europe? He cited
	“a comparative legal analysis of the position for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual people across EU States which has provided useful data in an area where there is little research”.
	Is my hon. Friend aware that that criteria was chosen by the Justice Minister?

Christopher Chope: I was not aware of that and am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing it out. As hon. Members often say, it is an issue of priorities. People and organisations must be judged on the priority they give to different issues. In the light of the enormous crisis in Europe and on European borders, it is odd that that should be a priority as opposed to the problems to which I have referred.
	The debate gives us an opportunity to go into many other aspects of asylum and border control, but I will not do so. I have highlighted why they are important. If the organisation has to exist, it would be better if it got on with dealing with serious issues rather than trying to expand its remit.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: To whom will the FRA be accountable? Who will set its agenda and control its budget?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here a long time and normally addresses the Chair. This is not a private conversation
	between two Back Benchers. We have allowed the debate to drift, but I hope we will come back to having it through the Chair rather than having a private conversation.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Christopher Chope: I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am sitting so close to my hon. Friend that it seems as if we are having a private conversation.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We could always continue the debate in the Tea Room if we are getting frustrated with the rest of the Chamber. I am sure that is not the case.

Christopher Chope: In that case, Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall raise my voice to make it obvious that this is not a private conversation. My hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) would like to have this conversation on the record—it certainly would not be on the record if it took place in the Tea Room. The short answer to his question is that we have a great opportunity, because the FRA has its multi-annual framework approved every five years. If we believe it has the wrong priorities, this is the moment to change it. The Bill could be amended to reflect the concerns of this Parliament.

Bob Stewart: I will talk directly to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but also to my hon. Friend on my right flank. It would be impossible to amend the framework. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) said, what hon. Members say will have little impact on the final decision.

Christopher Chope: I hope that that is not correct. My hon. Friend is demonstrating pessimism—or realism.

William Cash: I assure my hon. Friend 100% that, if this House, in its sovereign right, decides to repeal the European Communities Act 1972—we entered on a voluntary basis in that year—or any provision that emanates from section 2, by, for example, using the “notwithstanding” formula, we are entitled to do so. Nobody can do anything to stop us doing so. Whether the Whips would allow it is another thing.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I have been very generous in allowing hon. Members to drift all over, but I am not going back to 1972. I want us to stick to Second Reading. We have a bit of time and a bit of latitude has been given, but I do not want to go to the complete ends of it.

Christopher Chope: As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that time is available does not mean we have to use it all. Other hon. Members may wish to participate in the debate. Some might regret that they missed the opportunity to participate when they look at the record. Some of us hope we will catch Mr Speaker’s eye in tomorrow’s debate, and might do our prospects some damage if we speak in extenso this evening.
	This is a worthwhile debate and it is fantastic that we have the opportunity to discuss the Bill. I disagree with the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), who is no longer in his place. He said that the relatively
	low attendance shows a lack of interest, but many hon. Members have looked at the issue and we are discussing it, and we look forward to the Minister’s response.
	Obviously, most Europe debates from now on—for the next several years—will be preparatory to that great referendum. I would like the Government to start work on drawing up an audit of the costs and benefits of our EU membership. In the context of the Bill, they could do a lot worse than draw up an audit of the costs and benefits to this country of the work of the FRA compared with the work that is already being done in the Council of Europe—the Council of Europe’s work is being duplicated by the FRA.
	I will not vote against the Bill, but I hope that, in due course, we have the opportunity to discuss amendments to it.

Emma Reynolds: It is a great pleasure to take part in this wide-ranging debate on the Bill. Two of the three measures we have considered are fairly uncontroversial. The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice has rightly said that the changes are not far-reaching and are largely technical. However, as was pointed out by the hon. Members for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) and for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), the third proposal—on the number of European commissioners—is more controversial and significant. I will come to that measure in due course.
	The draft decision to give legally binding effect to the online version of the Official Journal of the European Union—notwithstanding the necessity to ensure that arrangements are in place for an electronic signature to be added to the online version to ensure authenticity—has come quite late in the day. Given that we are well into the 21st century—even if some hon. Members might wish to dispute this, or wish to go back in time—and given that the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice reminded us, with a little help, that there are 27 member states of the EU and 23 official languages published on a daily basis, the proposal for an online legal version might have been made earlier. We welcome the decision and support the Government in signing up to it. We are sure that it will facilitate a more efficient and economical legal publication and communication of legislation, other adopted Acts, information and notices, European Court of Justice judgments and invitations to tender for contracts. Given the climate change legislation we passed in government and the EU targets we have signed up to, I hope that printing fewer paper versions of the Official Journal will go some way to contributing to reaching those targets.
	Before I attended this debate, I thought the draft Council decision to establish a new multi-annual framework for the EU Fundamental Rights Agency for the period 2013-17 was relatively uncontroversial. Labour Members, at least, think it is a sensible way forward. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) mentioned the issues drawn out by the explanatory memorandum from the Justice Minister, Lord McNally—I tend to agree with him—who said that the agency
	“provides a useful tool in measuring the impact of EU legislation on fundamental rights across Europe including, as appropriate, in candidate countries”.
	The Council of Europe is not required to take on that role. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) cited the example of the FRA’s comparative legal analysis of the position for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual people across EU states. This is a serious issue and a useful report. You will not be surprised to hear, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I am not in agreement with either the hon. Member for Stone or for Christchurch.

Christopher Chope: I do not know how familiar the hon. Lady is with the Council of Europe and the work of the Parliamentary Assembly, but it comprises 47 countries. All the applicant states for membership of the European Union are members of the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe staff are currently dealing with all the issues she has described, but they do not have the extra resource that is now being put into the FRA.

Emma Reynolds: I assure the hon. Gentleman that as the shadow Minister for Europe I am well aware of the Council of Europe and its composition of 47 members, and I am well aware of its work. I will say again to the hon. Gentleman that I disagree with him. The Council of Europe does not have a role in measuring the impact of EU legislation, something I was just pointing out. If he checks the record, he will see that that is fact, not opinion.
	The third draft decision is more controversial and relates to the number of European Commissioners. I agree with the hon. Member for Stone that this issue has been debated over and over again, not least during the most recent treaty change. It is an issue of great sensitivity for both small and large member states. The Lisbon treaty provided that from 2014—in other words, from the next European Commission—the number of European Commissioners should be two-thirds the number of member states. That was the position we came to at the end of the negotiations on the Lisbon treaty. However, as we know, Ireland asked for a change to this provision, and a guarantee that each member state would keep its commissioner in the years to come.
	As hon. Members have said, there are two sides to this argument. Some argue that it is too cumbersome, unwieldy and inefficient to have one commissioner per member state, especially given that the EU is now composed of 27 member states—soon to be 28 later this year. Arguments have been put forward, particularly powerfully by smaller member states, that having one commissioner for each member state is the only way to secure equality. That is the Republic of Ireland’s position. As the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice said in his opening speech, there is a case for looking at the possibility of introducing some degree of seniority in the college of commissioners. We have also advocated the creation of a growth commissioner in the Commission. As the explanatory notes set out—this relates to the intervention made by the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown)—the draft decision will not apply beyond 2019, and will cease to apply if the EU reaches 30 or more member states, whichever comes earlier. My best guess is the former.
	The issue is certainly still live, sensitive and controversial. I am sure it will be the subject of ongoing debate in years to come, so I do not think today’s debate in this House is the end of the matter. We will have to see which direction the debate takes. There are two sides of
	the argument and we want to respect the sensitivities of smaller member states. That being said, I met the Danish ambassador earlier. She reminded me that Denmark’s position during the Lisbon treaty negotiations was that although it preferred to have its own commissioner, it was willing to give that up—not permanently, but on a rotating basis—if that meant that the European Commission and its college of commissioners could operate in a more efficient manner. I therefore think that this will be considered before we get to the 30th member state or beyond, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
	We support the Government’s intention to approve the three draft decisions, and we support the Bill’s Second Reading.

Mark Simmonds: This has been perhaps a more thorough and detailed debate than one might have initially anticipated. I am grateful to all hon. Members who have spoken and contributed to the debate. As the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice said when he opened the debate with a typically eloquent and articulate introduction, the Prime Minister has recently set out the need to examine the UK’s relationship with the European Union. The debates held last week, both here and in the other place, provide an opportunity to start to discuss the broader issues of our relationship with Europe. There will be many opportunities further to examine that relationship. I would therefore like to limit my remarks to the specifics of the Bill.
	I would first like to put on the record that it is because of the increased parliamentary control over EU decisions, which the Government delivered through the European Union Act 2011, that no UK Minister can vote in favour without first getting parliamentary approval—a very important point that a number of Members have made this afternoon.

John Hemming: I found the Bill interesting when I looked it up this morning on the internet. I read the explanatory notes, which refer to two draft decisions of the Council of the European Union and one draft decision of the European Council. Obviously, I know the Council of Europe is nothing to do with the EU, but what is the difference between the Council of the European Union and the European Council?

Mark Simmonds: Had the hon. Gentleman been here for the whole debate, he would have heard about that. I am happy to give way to hon. Members who have participated in this debate rather than to those who have just wandered into the Chamber.
	It is because of increased parliamentary control that we are debating the elements in the Bill. It gives the House an opportunity to consider several technical measures designed to make the EU more efficient and accessible. The Bill will give parliamentary approval for the Government to agree with three EU decisions. The European Union Act 2011 requires us to seek that approval before the Government can vote in favour of them at EU level.
	As the House has heard, the first decision will give legal effect to the electronic version of the Official Journal of the European Union, which will make access
	to EU law faster and more economical. The second decision will agree the work of the EU Fundamental Rights Agency for the next five years, which will ensure that the Council directs the work of the agency into areas considered to be a priority by member states. The third decision will maintain the current arrangement of having one EU commissioner per member state, which will fulfil a commitment to the Irish and will guarantee that the UK retains its commissioner and is in a stronger position to influence the make-up of the next Commission.
	I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) for his support for the Bill. He rightly welcomed parliamentary scrutiny, but it was slightly perplexing that he also welcomed referendums, given his party’s position on not allowing the British people the right to decide on what relationship they wish to have with the EU. He also made an important point about the fundamental rights issue, to which I shall return in a minute.
	We then heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), who gave a typically knowledgeable and detailed contribution on the workings of the EU. He was right to highlight the importance of parliamentary scrutiny, the significant change that the Government made and how it was in the UK’s interest. I also welcome his support for these small, technical, but important, measures. He was correct to highlight the Lisbon treaty proposals and how they have since changed, particularly in how they relate to the Commission.
	My hon. Friend will also be aware of the necessity, owing to the Irish position, of ensuring that each country has a commissioner, thus ensuring that the UK has a commissioner. He should be aware, however, that the draft decision states that that position should be reviewed when a new Commission is appointed in 2019 or when the number of EU member states exceeds 30, whichever is earliest. I reiterate to him that the Government are committed to having a leaner, less bureaucratic EU, to improving the efficiency of EU institutions, including the Commission, and to continuing to push for substantial reductions in the EU’s administration costs.
	We then heard from the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), who forcefully argued for an EU commissioner for each country. Part of the Bill will ensure that the UK has the commissioner for the next Commission period. I reiterate to him what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry.
	Then we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood). I am grateful to him for his support for the Bill. When he started speaking, I wondered where he was going on the lack of necessity for scrutiny of these important aspects emanating from the EU, but I think he came full circle and, in the end, supported scrutiny. He will no doubt intervene if I have misinterpreted his remarks. I was also slightly perplexed by his comments about the capacity of smaller EU countries to manage a commissioner. Many small EU countries’ commissioners have made a significant contribution to the EU, and I am sure they will do so in the next period.
	We then heard a traditionally articulate and passionate speech from my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), who was absolutely right, yet again, to highlight the importance of scrutiny,
	to recognise the vital role of the European Scrutiny Committee—a theme to which I shall return in a moment —and to highlight the significance of article 352, under which any powers brought forward must be agreed unanimously by the Council and EU Parliament. For the UK to agree that at the Council, however, and therefore for the required unanimity to be secured, the UK Parliament must first give its approval. That is what the Government have put in place under the 2011 Act. My hon. Friend was right to suggest that section 8 of the Act stated that a
	“Minister of the Crown may not vote in favour of or otherwise support an Article 352 decision unless”
	it is approved by an Act of Parliament. That is why this level of detailed, forensic scrutiny is essential and in the UK’s interest. Without the agreement of Parliament, therefore, a proposal brought forward under this legal base cannot be adopted throughout the EU.
	We then heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who gave a traditionally detailed, analytical speech. I was pleased that he welcomed the Prime Minister’s announcement of the referendum, although I accept that perhaps he does not agree with the timing. I would also like to put on the record my congratulations to him on his chairmanship of the European Scrutiny Committee. He does a sterling job not only for the House, as was mentioned, but for the country.

Wayne David: Does the Minister think that the Prime Minister agrees with his glowing praise of the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, given that he did his utmost to prevent him from becoming its Chair?

Mark Simmonds: I am not sure I share that analysis, and I am quite sure that the Prime Minister thinks extremely highly of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, who was right not only to underline the importance of scrutiny, as other Members did, but to point out that the Government reflected on his Committee’s suggestions —a good example of scrutiny working—and introduced proposals to pass primary legislation in the way that he and his Committee suggested.
	We then heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who detailed his thoughts and criticisms of how the FRA worked. I want to put on the record one or two facts in order to add to the debate that he will clearly have in Committee. The proposals do not expand the agency’s remit, but agree to a plan without which we would have much less control over its work. His example of wasting EU taxpayers’ money in the way he alluded to is sadly not the only example he could have given. This is not a new agency, and the funds flow from the EU budget, which, as he will know, is under intense scrutiny and pressure from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in order to ensure that UK taxpayers’ money is spent wisely and for the purposes for which it was intended—an ethos that I know he supports very strongly.
	My hon. Friend also wanted to know whom the agency was accountable to. It is accountable to the Council of Ministers, which allocates the budgets. I know that he looks forward to delving in further detail into this matter in Committee.
	Finally, we heard from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds). Again, I reiterate our thanks for the Opposition’s support. She
	was right again to highlight the issue of commissioners, although I will not repeat what I said about the position being reviewed when a new Commission is appointed in 2019 or when the number of EU member states exceeds 30, whichever is soonest.

Emma Reynolds: Will the Minister set out what the Government’s position will be when the time comes? As I said to the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), I think that 2019 will probably come before the 30th member joins. What will the Government argue for then? Will they argue to retain one commissioner per member state or to reduce their number, as originally set out in the Lisbon treaty?

Mark Simmonds: I very much hope that by 2019 the British people will have had a say on what relationship they want to have with the European Union, in the context that the Prime Minister has set out. Depending on the result of that referendum, we will have to assess the answer to those questions and many others at that time.
	Let me conclude by quickly setting out the four key tenets of the Bill. It ensures that Parliament has a key role in agreeing three decisions relating to the future of the EU. The UK took a strong line in negotiations on the work plan for the EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency. The electronic version of the Official Journal is faster and more economical than the current, print version. Agreeing to this decision backs the Government’s calls for a more efficient European Union. Agreeing to maintain the number of EU Commissioners will mean that the UK will be guaranteed a commissioner when the next EU Commission is appointed in 2014.
	The Government have given full consideration to all three measures. We are satisfied that they are in the best interests of the UK and are sensible and reasonable proposals. None of them has a significant impact. In particular, none will result in any additional financial
	burdens being imposed on the United Kingdom. This debate is an excellent example of UK parliamentary scrutiny working to the United Kingdom’s benefit in the context of our relationship with the European Union.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.

EUROPEAN UNION (APPROVALS) BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords]:
	Committal
	1. The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
	Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and Third Reading
	2. Proceedings in Committee, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken in one day in accordance with the following provisions of this Order.
	3. Proceedings in Committee and any proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	4. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	Programming committee
	5. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to the proceedings on the Bill in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.
	Other proceedings
	6. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any message from the Lords) may be programmed. —(Mr Swayne.)
	Question agreed to.

Business of the House (6 February)

Tom Brake: I beg to move,
	That, at the sitting on Wednesday 6 February—
	(1) notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (2) (c) of Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business), Opposition business may be proceeded with for three hours, and shall then lapse if not previously disposed of, and
	(2) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 20 (Time for taking private business), the Private Business set down by the Chairman of Ways and Means shall be entered upon at the conclusion of the Opposition business, and may then be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours, after which the Speaker shall interrupt the business; and the business may be entered upon after the moment of interruption.
	The Government are facilitating the protection of both the Opposition half-day allocated to the Democratic Unionist party and the opposed private business set down for Wednesday, with three hours each. Without this motion, any votes, statements, urgent questions or other business would curtail the amount of time available to Members for these important debates. I commend this motion to the House.

Christopher Chope: Briefly, I see no reason at all why we cannot have the normal arrangements, whereby three hours is allocated to private business between 4 o’clock and 7 o’clock on Wednesday. When such motions have been carried in the past, they have sometimes resulted in the private business continuing beyond 7 o’clock and the people promoting and speaking to that business being criticised by the Whips and colleagues for keeping the House late. The private business should be taken between 4 o’clock and 7 o’clock, and if the business managers so arrange things that they cannot deal with the other business before 4 o’clock and the private business has to continue after 7 o’clock, so be it. Obviously I am not going to divide the House on this matter this evening, but I put people on notice that if on Wednesday the private business continues beyond 7 o’clock and people start bellyaching about it, I hope they will not bellyache against those of us who take a keen interest in private business, but will criticise the Government and the business managers.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: As it is private business, it is not whipped business, so hon. Members will be completely free to go home whenever they feel like it as the private Bill is going through. No one will think otherwise.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend so often articulates the traditional view—indeed, the correct view—but unfortunately it is not consistent with the document outlining the Whip that I saw on the internet over the weekend.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household was nodding vigorously as I was making my intervention, so I think I had authoritative support from the Whips.

Christopher Chope: That puts a slightly different complexion on it. It means that if we approve this motion, all my hon. Friends and Opposition Members will be free immediately after the Opposition day business and will not need to stay for the private business. Following my hon. Friend’s useful contribution, I hope that the Whip will be altered accordingly to reflect the fact that people on this side of the House will be free to leave at 4 o’clock at the latest on Wednesday and that we can then have the private business in our time and under our own rules, with those who are interested in participating present in the House and others who are not so interested absent. On that basis—that the Government are changing the whipping, so that private business is not whipped business—I shall not push this matter to a vote.

Nigel Evans: I will be staying for the private business, Mr Chope, and I can barely wait.
	Question put and agreed to.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	Home Affairs

Ordered,
	That Karl Turner be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee and Chris Ruane be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

International Development

Ordered,
	That Alison McGovern be discharged from the International Development Committee and Fabian Hamilton be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Science and Technology

Ordered,
	That Caroline Dinenage be discharged from the Science and Technology Committee and David Tredinnick be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Scottish Affairs

Ordered,
	That Mike Freer be discharged from the Scottish Affairs Committee and Sir James Paice be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

HAZARA COMMUNITY (PAKISTAN)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Swayne.)

John Denham: I am very grateful indeed for the opportunity to have this debate. I hope that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) and a number of others may be able to participate, given the time at which we are starting. I am also grateful that the Minister is in his place to respond on what is obviously a busy day for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, given the visit of President Hamid Karzai and President Asif Ali Zardari. That visit makes this a timely debate—I will return to that point in a few moments.
	On the Wednesday before last, I and a number of colleagues from across the House helped to organise a lobby of Parliament by members of the British Hazara community. That was the week in which many right hon. and hon. Members were signing the memorial book for Holocaust memorial day. That event asks us all each year to be aware that genocidal persecution on religious and ethnic grounds is not simply an appalling past event but an ever-present danger that we have to be aware of. The persecution of the Hazara community, in Quetta and other parts of Balochistan, is undoubtedly persecution for religious and ethnic reasons—it bears those strong hallmarks—and that is the issue I want to raise today.
	The last time this matter was raised on the Adjournment was in a debate led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) on 1 March last year. The Minister responded to that debate too. I am sure that when he speaks the Minister will agree that things have not improved for the Hazaras in Quetta since that debate last March.
	I do not want to pretend that I have long been aware of the history and plight of Hazaras; the truth is that I was not. Beyond some references to the community in novels such as “The Kite Runner” and an awareness of the small—about 150—but distinctive community in Southampton, of whom I had met a few, I had relatively little knowledge of the Hazara community. As a group, the Hazaras are physically quite distinctive, with somewhat Mongolian looks, and that distinctive appearance has helped to contribute to their vulnerability in Pakistan.
	I did not know a great deal about the history and the plight of the Hazara community until a group of my constituents came to see me earlier this year. The story they told me truly appalled me. Theirs is a long history, and I will not attempt to rehearse it here tonight. Suffice it to say that the community originated in central Asia, in the Afghan central highlands. The Hazaras converted to Shi’a Islam in the 13th century, and while the majority remain Shi’a, there are now Sunnis, Ismailis and secular members of the community.
	Persecution of the Hazara community by Afghan rulers started, I am afraid, under the British Empire, and it has been a consistent problem in Afghanistan ever since. Many Hazaras have left Afghanistan, and over 100 years ago many settled in and around Quetta, which in due course became part of Pakistan. We are all familiar with the recent waves of refugees from Afghanistan to Pakistan, some of whom have eventually made their way here, where they have sought and been granted asylum.
	However, the Hazaras that I am talking about today are part of that much longer-established community in Quetta who are not refugees but Pakistani citizens. For a long time, they lived free from persecution in Quetta, thriving educationally and economically. As citizens, they are entitled to full support from the Pakistani state. Since the late 1990s, however, their situation has changed dramatically. The killings started in 1999. Since then, more than 1,000 Hazaras have been killed in Quetta, 3,000 or more have been injured, and 55,000 or so have been forced to flee to Europe or Australia. All of those came from a population of between 500,000 and 600,000.
	The perpetrators are a banned Sunni militant al-Qaeda-affiliated group called Lashkar-e-Jhangvi—the LEJ. The Taliban and the LEJ have both issued fatwas against the Hazaras. After the recent violence, an LEJ spokesman was reported as saying that the Hazaras had been warned in 2012 that they should leave Balochistan, the province in which Quetta sits, and that as many had not done so, the LEJ will not allow Shi’as to leave alive in 2013.
	That is the background to the dreadful bombing in Quetta on 10 January this year. The death toll was well above 100, and more than 120 people were injured. One of my reasons for seeking this debate is that although that incident was widely reported on television and radio and in the press, the reporting rarely gave any context to the violence, which was generally reported as simply another bomb attack in Pakistan. Some reports alluded to a generalised struggle between Sunni and Shi’a Muslims. The few that even mentioned the Hazaras did not explain their history, the background to their situation or the agency of their persecution. One of the reasons for having this debate is to put on public record at least some of that background, and to challenge some of the myths.
	One such myth is that the persecution is a manifestation of some generalised Sunni-Shi’a conflict that has manifested itself from time to time in regional tensions in other parts of the middle east. I do not believe that that is the case. It is clear from the targets of the violence and from the death toll that the violence is directed at just one distinctive community within the wider Shi’a community. I understand that the Hazaras of Quetta are 33 times more likely to be killed by political violence than members of the wider Shi’a community in Pakistan. That constitutes a focus on a particular religious and ethnic group.

Andy Slaughter: My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case. As he has said, this constitutes not only religious but ethnic cleansing, and the figures that he has given the House are stark. Is he aware that, despite the 1,000 deaths, the local government in Pakistan—which, fortunately, has now been disbarred by the Pakistani Government—has not brought a single charge against anyone for the offences, and that not one member of that government has ever condemned any of the atrocities?

John Denham: One of the most serious problems is that there has been no acceptance of responsibility by the Pakistani authorities of the kind that we would expect in a serious situation such as this. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us what representations Her Majesty’s Government have been able to make to the Pakistani authorities on this matter.
	The problem with the ill-informed, shallow or sweeping reporting that we have seen is that it tends to obscure the real causes of the violence and to obscure the responsibilities. It allows the incidents to be shrugged off as though that is “just the way things are”. Since 1990, the violence has included ride-by and drive-by shootings, personal attacks, suicide bombings, rocket attacks and car bombs, as well as the ambushing of buses and taxis and the subsequent selection of Hazara passengers for execution.
	This is not the first time that my constituents have alerted me to what has happened to their relatives. Under the last Government, I took constituents who had family in the Swat valley in Pakistan to meet Lord Malloch-Brown, then a Foreign Office Minister, to alert him to the violence being carried out by the Pakistan Taliban. My constituents had come to me with stark examples of what had happened to members of their families in the recent past. I shall not give the House details of names, as family members might suffer as a result, but I have received clear documentation of constituents who had seen family members—male breadwinners—singled out for murder in three separate incidents over the past three years. The effects of that are devastating for the entire family. In a country with little in the way of a social security system, the loss of a male breadwinner has an impact on every member of the extended family.
	There are wider consequences too. The Hazaras in Quetta have to live in isolation from other Pakistani citizens, not least because those other citizens fear being caught up in the violence. They suffer travel restrictions, and virtually all the Hazara students in Quetta have dropped out of university, following attacks on student transport. Hazara people have also faced difficulty in accessing civil service jobs. As has already been pointed out, however, not a single terrorist has yet been prosecuted. On the rare occasions when individuals have been arrested, they have been released. The provincial governor has been replaced, but little action seems to have been taken as yet.
	The failure of the Pakistan authorities to safeguard the Hazara community is surely beyond doubt, but concerns remain about a much more sinister involvement. It is alleged that the intelligence services, the Inter-Services Intelligence, sections of which have a history of involvement with extremist forces, have links in some ways to the LEJ. I want to put it on record that I do not know whether such links are documented or what the strength of the evidence is, but the concerns about those potential connections are widely shared among those I have spoken to.
	There are complicated provincial politics in Balochistan, involving not only the movements I have mentioned. The province is also tied up in the wider regional conflict, and there have been separatist movements and movements calling for autonomy. Many Hazaras believe that they have been caught up as innocent victims in the wider geo-politics.

Fiona Mactaggart: My right hon. Friend is describing the confusion and rumours that are spreading about this issue. There seems to be a real case for a proper judicial inquiry to expose what is happening and to call the Government of Pakistan to account. The
	chief justice of Pakistan has expressed his willingness to do that, and I believe that he is the right person to conduct such an inquiry. Will my right hon. Friend urge the Minister to make representations to the Government of Pakistan to convince them that that might be a way forward that has not yet been tried?

John Denham: My hon. Friend has put forward an interesting proposal. I am about to put my specific points to the Minister on the action that could be taken, and I invite him to respond to my hon. Friend’s proposal about the chief justice as well.
	The points I wish to put to the Minister are these. First, will he tell us whether the position of the Hazaras been raised with either the President of Pakistan or members of his delegation over the past two days when he was in this country on other matters? If not, when were these issues last raised by Ministers from Her Majesty’s Government with the Pakistani authorities, and what was the response?
	Secondly, there are, of course, huge issues in this region that are currently under discussion—not least today between our own Prime Minister and the Presidents of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Does the Minister agree that while these supra-regional questions are being settled, the position of those such as the Hazaras must not be overlooked, left on one side or seen as too small, too trivial or too local to be taken into account? Will the Minister give me an assurance about the Government’s efforts to ensure that the Hazara community—in Quetta, of course, but also in Afghanistan—are not left on one side?
	Thirdly, will the Minister give us an undertaking that the plight of the Hazaras in Quetta will be an explicit issue to be raised when the conditions of aid to Pakistan are discussed? Fourthly, what has the British high commissioner—and, indeed, Ministers—done to raise the profile of this persecution within Pakistan itself? Have Ministers or high commission officials visited Quetta to see the conditions faced by the Hazaras?
	Fifthly, would the Minister be willing to facilitate a visit to Quetta by Members of this House? And sixthly, at UN level, will the Government ask the conflict prevention unit within the Bureau for Crisis Prevention of the UN Development Programme to assess whether the situation in Quetta is, or is tending towards, genocide, and in general to push for the engagement of the conflict prevention unit in this particular situation?
	I have two further points. The Minister has in the past rightly expressed the truth that a range of minority groups have suffered and do suffer oppression and discrimination in Pakistan. In part, though, the Pakistan Government have tended to respond on the Hazara issue by questioning why a single group should be highlighted for attention. Does the Minister agree that although a number of groups face oppression, that is no good reason to lump them all together as part of a generalised concern for human rights, but makes it all the more essential to understand the history, the particularities and the nature of the oppressors in each case and to ensure appropriate action is taken in each case?
	For the past two years, the position of the Hazaras has been referred to by name in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office human rights report. I welcome that, and I assume the same will happen again this year.
	In the Minister’s response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle last March, he quite rightly stressed the importance of our relationship with Pakistan and our friendship with that country. My own experience has been one of positive engagement with the high commissioner on a range of issues. The importance of this relationship makes it all the more vital that we are consistent and insistent on raising these issues, particularly for my constituents in those cases that are so intimately linked by family and history to communities in this country.

Iain Stewart: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) on securing this important debate, and I thank him for his courtesy in allowing me to say a few words. He has comprehensively and eloquently set out the plight of the Hazara community in Pakistan. I am happy to endorse the points he made.
	Like Southampton, Milton Keynes is home to a sizeable Hazara community. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) and I have spent a considerable amount of time meeting members of that community and working with them. Last year, we had the great honour of attending their annual school prize-giving day—a warm and jolly occasion that served to underline the warmth and depth of community spirit among them in Milton Keynes. That makes it even more galling to learn about the stories of their kinsmen and loved ones being persecuted, injured and killed in Pakistan.
	The numbers involved are quite shocking. The right hon. Gentleman has given us a list. The impact of the killings and of the injuries sustained among the community as a whole has been absolutely shocking. Let me provide a few other examples. A decade ago, there were 300 students at the main university in Quetta. After all the death threats and the persecutions, there are not any today. About 80% of Hazara businesses have either had to be sold or closed down. There are 3,000 orphans or children living in poverty because the main breadwinner has been killed. As we have heard, there is no semblance of a social security system there. Then there are the thousands killed or maimed—yet not one arrest of the perpetrators. Those figures are shocking, but it is only when we hear personal examples that the true scale of the horror comes home.

Andrew Smith: I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) on securing this enormously important debate. I was pleased to join the big meeting that the hon. Gentleman sponsored in the House of Commons, for which I thank him. Was it not deeply moving both to hear the testimony of the people there and to experience their confidence that making their representations through this House to the Government might produce real change in the interest of justice for the Hazaras?

Iain Stewart: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention and he is absolutely right. That recent meeting was one of the most powerful I have ever attended in this place. It was heart warming to encounter the strength of feeling and the optimism among members of the community that we might be able to effect some
	positive influence or change. I will certainly continue to do all I can, and I know that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will do the same.
	In preparing for this debate, I spoke to some of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North to get their personal stories about what has happened. A gentleman by the name of Nasir Abbas was a relative of my constituents Mokhtar and Shalia Ali. He was 34 and he was the main breadwinner of the family; the rest of the family depended on him, yet he was killed in a suicide attack. The family is now living in squalor, with no real way of supporting themselves. The family then suffered again, when the father-in-law received a death threat and not long afterwards suffered a fatal heart attack—yet another tragedy for the family. That is just one of many similar examples that go on today.
	As the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen mentioned, we have not long since marked holocaust memorial day. At the weekend, I attended a couple of plays in one of Milton Keynes’s theatres by a group called “voices of the holocaust”. The very powerful plays depicted the escalation of persecution in Nazi Germany in the 1930s. It was an historical reminder of what went on and of the fact that that same kind of persecution happens today, which places on us a great duty to stand up and speak out against it. I have done a lot of work with the community across the country, and I am happy to endorse the resolutions they passed in the conference on genocide.
	I appreciate that this area is a dangerous and difficult part of the world, but that does not absolve us from taking action. I know that the Minister has taken a keen interest in the matter. I urge him, in addition to answering the specific questions raised by the right hon. Gentleman, to do all he can to work bilaterally with the Pakistani authorities, but also multilaterally through the United Nations. I think that it, too, has a significant role to play.
	Of all the points made by the right hon. Gentleman, the one I would particularly emphasise concerned the need to use the lever of British aid to bring about some positive action. As the conference has demonstrated during the past couple of days, we are not without influence in that part of the world. I owe it to my constituents to stand up and highlight the plight of their kinsmen, and this country owes it to those people to stand up for them, to speak out, and to use what influence we have to improve this dreadful situation.

Andy Slaughter: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) for allowing me to trespass on his debate for what I hope will be only a couple of moments.
	Hazaras do not stand out from the rest of the population of Hammersmith. I was not well acquainted with them until I was introduced to the local Hazara community, and before that I would not have distinguished them from the Afghanistan, Mongolian and south Asian minorities in my constituency. Sadly for them, however, they do stand out in Pakistan, and they have been victimised to an extent that cannot be overemphasised.
	I want to make two points to the Minister. First, what is intended by the alliance between the LEJ, sections of
	the Taliban and, possibly, sections of the security services is nothing short of genocide. A threatening letter issued last year told Hazaras in Quetta:
	“Just as our fighters have waged a successful jihad against the Shia-Hazaras in Afghanistan, our mission”
	—in Pakistan—
	“is the abolition of this impure sect and people”.
	Last August, a report from the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan stated:
	“Hazaras have been…uprooted from Machh, Loralai and Zhob. It seems a campaign has been launched to terrorize the Hazara community so that they leave Quetta by selling their businesses and property at throwaway prices. Pamphlets have been left at their homes telling them to sell their houses and leave.”
	That sustained and organised campaign of murder and aggression led to the appalling snooker hall bombings of 10 January—the second bomb was designed to kill those who had come to save the victims of the first—and the harrowing sight, which I think we all saw on the news, of the bodies of the dead remaining unburied, and of relatives waiting with the coffins for three days, in sub-zero temperatures, to make public the plight of the whole community. In the end, it was that, and only that, which embarrassed the Pakistani Government and the Prime Minister enough to make them step in and impose governor’s rule in the province over the—I do not think that this is an exaggeration—gimcrack Government who had behaved in the way I have described.
	Yes, there is effective military rule at present, and yes—thank God—there have been no more atrocities; but no one believes that the security situation has been resolved. Military rule is not the solution in the longer term. The Hazaras do not want that any more than anyone else. They simply want to live in peace in their own country, with their neighbours, as they did for so many decades. That is an obligation for the Pakistani Government, and it is an obligation that I hope the Minister will address in his response to my right hon. Friend’s points. I hope the Minister will tell us how the British Government can help the Hazara population—the diaspora in this country and elsewhere, but principally those in Pakistan—to secure what they want, which is simply the ability to live in peace and security in their own homes.

Alistair Burt: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) on securing the debate, and thank him for—with his usual courtesy—giving me his text in advance this afternoon. I thank other Members for attending and intervening, and I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) and the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) for their speeches.
	This has been a sobering half hour or so. Although it is a year since we last debated the issue, it remains as important and relevant as it was then, and probably more so. It is an issue in which I had an opportunity to take a personal interest when I met some of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster), and I welcome the opportunity to discuss it again.
	Since our last debate, my responsibilities in the Department have changed to some extent. I no longer have territorial responsibility for Afghanistan and Pakistan, which are now the responsibility of my noble Friend Baroness Warsi. However, I still answer for those issues in the House of Commons, and one of the first things I will do is bring the debate and the comments of colleagues to the attention of my noble Friend.

Iain Stewart: I appreciate that there has been a reshuffle of responsibilities in the Department, but would my hon. Friend be able to arrange a meeting with Baroness Warsi and interested Members so that we can explore the issues with her directly?

Alistair Burt: That is a good idea. If my hon. Friend had asked me for such a meeting, I should have been able to say yes straight away. I can say, however— without committing my noble Friend—that I am sure I shall be able to convey to her both my hon. Friend’s comment and the general feeling of the House that a meeting with a group of colleagues who understand the issue well would be particularly welcome to them, and, no doubt, welcome to those whom they represent. I shall make that point very clearly.
	Since our last debate, the position of the Hazara community in Pakistan has remained extremely difficult. Human Rights Watch estimates that at least 320 members of the Shia community were killed in targeted attacks in 2012, including many from the Hazara community. As has was mentioned earlier, only last month—on 10 January—twin bomb attacks in Quetta tragically killed nearly 100 people and injured over 200 more in the circumstances described by the hon. Member for Hammersmith. Most of those who were killed were members of the Hazara community.
	Those horrendous acts of sectarian violence showed an appalling contempt for human life. Both my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and Baroness Warsi publicly expressed the UK’s strong condemnation of the attacks, and their concern about the persecution that had been suffered. My right hon. Friend said:
	“I was extremely saddened to hear of the brutal terrorist and sectarian attacks in Quetta and Swat yesterday.”
	He sent his sincere condolences to the bereaved families, and added:
	“I wish all those injured in the attacks a swift recovery. The United Kingdom strongly condemns these senseless attacks and the persecution of the Shia population. It was a tragic day for Pakistan. We will continue to stand with the people of Pakistan in their fight against terror and violent extremism.”
	The latest bombings, described as one of the worst attacks on the Shia community, resulted in nationwide protests. The families of the bomb victims refused to bury their dead until they were given assurances that the Army would take administrative control of the province. As the House will know, late in the evening on Sunday 13 January, Sardar Aslam Raisani, the Chief Minister of Baluchistan, was dismissed by Prime Minister Ashraf for failing to prevent the escalating sectarian violence in the province. Zulfiqar Ali Magsi, the Governor of Baluchistan and the most senior official in the province, has now been temporarily put in charge.
	Baluchistan’s problems are deep-rooted and require long-term solutions, which was well understood by those who spoke this evening. Although some members of the Hazara community have called for military rule
	to protect their rights, the position of the United Kingdom Government is that it is in Pakistan’s long-term interests for all groups to enjoy meaningful political representation to ensure effective political engagement and a peaceful means of protecting their interests. Any solution must stay within the parameters of Pakistan’s constitution.
	We remain deeply concerned about the violent persecution faced by all minority groups in Pakistan. We raise their plight with the Government of Pakistan regularly. My noble Friend Baroness Warsi spoke about it with Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar at the UN General Assembly in September, and, most recently, during her visit to Pakistan in November, when she urged Pakistani Ministers to protect and guarantee the fundamental rights of all Pakistani citizens.
	Additionally, at Pakistan’s recent universal periodic review at the UN in October, the UK raised the importance of ensuring the ability of all minorities groups to vote freely in the upcoming elections. We also encouraged Pakistan to implement the international covenant on civil and political rights to ensure the equal and absolute rights of all its citizens.
	The UK and Pakistan have a long history and a strong relationship founded on mutual respect, mutual trust and mutual benefit. Our respect for Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity is absolute. I must make it clear to the House that the security of Baluchistan is, as with all provinces of Pakistan, a matter for the people and Government of Pakistan. Persecution of the Shi’a Hazaras is not limited to Baluchistan; across Pakistan, Sunni and Shi’a alike have suffered from the scourge of sectarian violence. In the past year, Karachi, Pakistan’s largest city and financial nerve centre, has seen an increase in sectarianism, which has led to a 28% rise in violence-related deaths.
	Before I make any more general remarks, let me deal with the specific questions that the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen put, as he was good enough to give me some notice of them. The new question, however, was the one raised by the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) relating to the chief justice and the possibility of a judicial inquiry, and I will draw Baroness Warsi’s attention to that as a potential idea. At the end of his remarks, the right hon. Gentleman raised a point about recognising the importance of dealing with all groups that suffer persecution in Pakistan and elsewhere in a generic manner. That does not, however, mean that their individual histories or problems are not recognised as singular issues in the overall context of the importance of the rule of law being enforced everywhere, which is the best way of protecting everyone. Even within that, we should recognise that particular circumstances should be prominent and I will return to that important point in a moment.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the position of the Hazaras has been raised with the President of Pakistan or with members of the delegation over the past couple of days. It did not form part of the general conversation in the past couple of days in relation to the regional issue, but it is very much a part of a recognition of the overall settlement in Afghanistan that the rights of minorities, including those of the Hazara, need to be taken into account.
	As we have been generously gifted a little more time by the time fairies of the Commons doing their work earlier today—I could name my hon. Friends, but I shall not on this occasion—let me say a bit about the position
	of Hazaras in Afghanistan. The UK Government are very aware of the challenging circumstances faced by the Hazaras in Afghanistan. Article 22 of the Afghan constitution makes clear provision for the equal rights of all Afghan citizens, and we will continue to remind the Afghan Government of the need to ensure those rights. We have also made it clear that a political settlement should be inclusive and should address the needs of all Afghan citizens.
	Since 2001, the situation has improved for Hazaras in Afghanistan, with Hazaras now in senior Afghan Government positions. They include the second vice-President, the acting higher education Minister and the governor of Bamiyan province—the first female provincial governor—Habiba Sarabi, whom I have met. We welcome that progress and we will continue to remind the Afghan Government of the need to ensure the equal rights of all citizens. In the regional context, any settlement in Afghanistan that makes sense will have to include proper attention being given to human rights. That was a key part of what the international community stressed in the agreements signed last year and it will be a key part of what happens post-2014. As we all know, the need for the closest relationship possible between Afghanistan and Pakistan in a future settlement is emphasised by the trilateral meetings taking place today. Again, I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that although the specific position of the Hazaras is unlikely to constitute a specific part of those conversations, there is a recognition that the future of both Afghanistan and Pakistan cannot be assured unless serious attention is paid to the rule of law and ensuring the enforcement of human rights protection right across both states. Without that, neither state will have security and stability, which is going to be of prime importance.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked whether I would ensure that the plight of the Hazaras will be explicitly raised when the conditions of aid to Pakistan are discussed. Taking advice from the Department for International Development, I would say that all UK aid to any country is based on three shared commitments with partner Governments: poverty reduction and meeting the millennium development goals; respecting human rights and other international obligations; and strengthening financial management and accountability. We do not use those conditions to impose specific policy choices on countries. In Pakistan, our aid will support the Pakistan authorities in making progress in the relevant areas, including through concrete measures to improve the economy, reform education and devote proper attention to human rights. So although these things are an important part of the bargain made with any particular country, we do not make our aid conditional on specific issues.

Martin Horwood: I welcome the remarks the Minister has made so far, and the way in which the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) and other hon. Members have educated me and the whole House about the plight of the Hazara community. Does the Minister agree that we should not extend that idea of conditionality too far in relation to British aid? Under both this Government and the previous Labour Government, aid has been focused on helping those in greatest need, particularly the poorest and most vulnerable, including those in conflict-afflicted and fragile states such as Pakistan. It would be regrettable if we departed too far from that principle.

Alistair Burt: On balance, I share the view of my hon. Friend. The difficulty with making aid conditional is that the determination to withdraw aid is aimed at a Government, but there are many occasions when atrocities take place and the Government may not be totally in charge of a situation—equally, there are circumstances where Governments appear to be all too certain to be implicated. The process is difficult, but until now the situation has clearly been straightforward and aid has not been conditional. Despite that, it is important that countries receiving aid adhere to human rights.

John Denham: Having worked in development before I entered this House, I, too, have some sympathy with the idea that imposing crude conditionality is not a good use of aid. The question really is: when the discussions take place between DFID Ministers and officials, and the Pakistan Government, is the second of the three challenges that the Minister set out—human rights—raised in a general way? Alternatively, as a way of illustrating what needs to change, is the position of the Hazaras, for example, specifically raised as the sort of test of, and the sort of thing that we would have in mind in deciding, whether human rights were being properly protected? Part of the challenge is simply to make sure that in wanting to include all the issues in a general way we do not lose the ability to say, “This is one of the ways in which we measure progress.”

Alistair Burt: I absolutely take the point and understand fully how the right hon. Gentleman expresses it, which is absolutely in line with his experience. As a result of the debate, I shall write to the Secretary of State for International Development and make that point directly to her. We use examples in our report on countries of concern, as the right hon. Gentleman has picked out, and by using specific issues relating to the Hazaras and their situation I am seeking to demonstrate that they are not lost in the generality. He makes the point that they could be used as a specific examples—I do not know whether DFID does that but I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to his precise question.
	On the question of the role of the British high commissioners and Ministers in raising the profile of the persecution in Pakistan, officials have not visited Quetta because of the security situation, although they have met Hazara representatives in the high commission in Islamabad. The same security situation that has made it impossible for us to visit in the past year would apply to facilitating visits for Members. Our travel advice is simply not to go because of the danger. It is never possible to prevent Members of Parliament from travelling wherever they wish, but my advice would be to recognise the travel advice offered by colleagues. As we advise all UK individuals not to go at this stage, I am not sure whether we could facilitate such a trip.
	The right hon. Gentleman’s last question was to ask us to take matters up directly with the conflict prevention unit at the bureau of crisis prevention and recovery at the UNDP to assess whether the situation in Quetta is tending towards genocide. I do not know the answer to that question, so I shall write to him and put a copy of the letter in the Library to allow other interested colleagues to see it. I did not have enough time to deal with that question before the debate.
	As I mentioned earlier, the problems faced by the Hazaras are not limited to that group. That brings me back to the issue facing Pakistan in general, but notwithstanding the difficulties of Hazaras in Pakistan it is important to set them in the overall context of how difficult it is and what hopes there are of settling the situation in the near and medium term.
	Minorities across Pakistan have at times endured terrible persecution and violence. There was the attack on Malala Yousafzai, the 14-year-old girl of whom we are all well aware from the pictures of her on the television today. I emphasise the joy we all feel at her recovery and the extraordinary bravery with which she faced those conditions and answered questions in the interviews today. The attack on Malala shocked everyone and was an example of the extraordinary and completely unjustified brutality of men against women in that part of the world. The UK Government strongly support the efforts of Malala and the Government of Pakistan to ensure that all children in Pakistan have access to education in a safe environment, free from the threat of terrorism. The only good thing that came out of that horror was the public demonstration in support of her and of education, with men and women in Pakistan saying that they had put up with enough. If only such demonstrations could also be seen on the streets of those places that have suffered the worst outbreaks of terrorism in Pakistan, more corners would be turned.
	There is some light, occasionally, in these difficult situations, such as the case of Rimsha Masih, the young Christian girl who was arrested for blasphemy last August. The charges against her were dropped by the Supreme Court because of a lack of evidence and a certain amount of disquiet in the region about the charges brought against her. Again, she was a member of another minority suffering from persecution. There is hope in Pakistan that the case will be a catalyst for change and that future cases can be properly investigated and pursued.
	In August, President Zardari publically acknowledged the problems faced by Pakistan’s minorities and emphasised his Government’s support for ending discrimination, which was a first step in the process of dealing with violence against minorities. Although Pakistan still has a long way to go in dealing with those issues, as a friend of Pakistan we offer our robust support in addressing the problems.
	Sixty five years ago, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, shared his vision for the newly created nation with the first constituent assembly. He said there should be
	“no discrimination between one caste or creed and another”
	for Pakistan is founded with the
	“fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one state”.
	We know many statesmen and women from Pakistan who believe in and support his words. Although Pakistan has yet to fulfil Jinnah’s dream of a nation made up of
	“equal citizens of one state”,
	I have been encouraged and inspired by the many Pakistanis I have met who are working tirelessly to realise that—none more so than my friend the late Shahbaz Bhatti, the Minister of National Harmony and Minority Affairs, whose work towards peaceful, moderate change was met with such brutal violence and his death. His brother Paul Bhatti has taken up that cause with energy and commitment.
	I am also heartened by the work that we are doing in the UK to promote the right to freedom of religion and of belief worldwide. Last month, my right hon. Friend the noble Baroness Warsi convened a ministerial level meeting to secure political support for the UN Human Rights Council resolution 16/18 to tackle religious intolerance and foster religious freedom and pluralism. It was encouraging to see Pakistan represented at that meeting and to hear its commitment to the agenda.
	As hon. Members know, the human rights situation in Pakistan remains complex. Although the past 24 months have seen some positive political and legal developments on human rights issues, successful and fair implementation remains a huge challenge. As I mentioned in my speech last year, enhancing the rule of law in Pakistan is crucial to improving the plight of the Hazaras and other minority groups. I am pleased to say that, since our last debate, this Government have launched a programme to help to improve Pakistan’s ability successfully to investigate, prosecute, convict and detain terrorists in a human rights compliant manner. We are working with Pakistan and the international community to deliver a range of programmes, such as training and mentoring, in support of that long-term goal.
	Looking to the future, the upcoming elections later this year will be a crucial milestone in Pakistan’s democratic history. Helping Pakistan to deliver credible elections
	that lead to a peaceful transfer of power will be a top priority for the UK in 2013. We will also encourage Pakistan and its new Government to step up their actions and implementation of international obligations on human rights. Essential changes will happen only with the political support of the authorities. We will continue to focus on the rights of minorities through frank senior level discussions.
	The UK is committed to an enduring relationship with Pakistan and we will continue to work with the leaders of Pakistan and its people. At the universal periodic review of Pakistan last October, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar spoke of Pakistan’s aspiration to be a society that is based on equality, the rule of law, respect for diversity and justice. As a friend of Pakistan we have a distinctive role to play in supporting that aspiration. As the House has made clear this evening, how the Hazara community and its issues are treated will form part of the judgment on how Pakistan is responding to the challenges it is rightly setting itself.
	I am grateful for the support of colleagues and to the right hon. Gentleman for raising the matter.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.